Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.

The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.

The highly anticipated Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale [2020] UKSC 25 has endorsed the use of adjudication in the context of insolvency set off, substantially reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The passage and the working of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) is an important landmark in India’s tryst with insolvency and debt restructuring laws. Further, the interpretation provided by the courts, from holding that the Code is not a means for recovery of dues to reinforcing the primacy and commercial wisdom of the committee of creditors, along with appropriate and timely amendments by the legislature in line with the object of the Code has certainly aided in the successful implementation of the Code.

Suppliers are now prevented from terminating many contracts and supplies of goods or services if the customer is subject to a ‘relevant insolvency procedure’ (such as going into administration, CVA, or appointing a provisional liquidator).

This follows the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which came into force on 26 June. Although Coronavirus has accelerated the passing of the Act, these are set to be permanent changes.

What can’t suppliers do?*

DAC Beachcroft's GC Horizon Scanner is a selection of legal and regulatory developments that we consider are the most interesting and relevant to General Counsel, senior managers and professionals, allowing them to keep abreast of issues which are likely to impact their business, prepare for opportunities and mitigate risks.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force on 26 June bringing in measures to alleviate the burden on businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic and allow directors to focus their efforts on continuing to operate. In this article we consider the temporary changes to the wrongful trading regime and other key changes introduced by the Act.

Temporary wrongful trading relaxation

The first tentative steps are now being taken to ease the lockdown restrictions imposed on the nation as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and thoughts are turning to how we can return to “normal”. The construction sector is no exception but finds itself in a slightly different position to many businesses as sites were never required to close (provided that work could carry on “safely”). Nevertheless the impact of COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the finances of the construction sector and the viability of current and future projects.

On 20 May 2020, the Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament. The Bill is a much awaited development following the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s statement on 28 March 2020 announcing key measures to help businesses address the challenges resulting from the impact of coronavirus.

Financial services firms subject to special insolvency regimes supervised by the FCA, PRA, and other financial services regulators have been largely excluded by the Bill.

Fraser Turner Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1290

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision striking out claims against administrators which alleged that they owed a duty to a specific creditor and were guilty of misfeasance.

Fraser Turner Limited (FT) was party to an agreement (“Royalty Agreement”) with London Mining plc (“LM”) and London Mining Company Ltd (“LMCL”) which provided for FT to receive a royalty in respect of iron ore produced at the Marampa mine. LMCL was a wholly owned subsidiary of LM.