Lawyers occasionally wonder how the law ended up as it is. We had that experience after the Dutch Supreme Court’s decision of 1 July 2022 (Rabobank/Ten Berge q.q.; ECLI:NL:HR:2022:984), regarding the possibility or impossibility of pledging a claim. The Supreme Court decided that claims that have been made non-transferable under property law in a contractual agreement between a creditor and a debtor, cannot be pledged either.
In this week’s update: an updated checklist for managing an electronic signing on a corporate or commercial transaction, the FCA and AIM are to bring an end to temporary relaxations introduced due to Covid-19 and the court orders a listed company to be wound up on “just and equitable grounds.
Since 9 January 2022, the public type of the Dutch Scheme is automatically recognized in the EU under the European Insolvency Regulation. This will be further discussed in this blog.
Last year saw the introduction of the Dutch Scheme (we refer to our previous blogs for further details on the Dutch Scheme).
The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill has been introduced in Parliament and addresses rent debts under business tenancies adversely affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
New Legislation
In this week’s update: Funds in a holding company’s bank account belonged to a subsidiary and could be used to pay the costs of a subsidiary’s acquisition, the FCA publishes a series of Q&A on the cessation of LIBOR and the Government publishes a roadmap towards greening finance and sustainable investing.
Despite the economic disruption of Covid-19 and resulting lockdowns, the number of formal insolvencies has been remarkably low.
On 28 June 2021, the Minister of Justice presented a draft temporary bill on transparency of expedited liquidations (de tijdelijke wet transparantie turboliquidatie). As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Minister expects that there will be an increase in the number of businesses that will need to be liquidated. Under Dutch law, the most efficient way to do this is through expedited liquidation (turboliquidatie). However, as the expedited liquidation barely provides for safeguards to creditors, it is often considered a mechanism that is open for abuse.
The recent case of Official Receiver v Deuss [2021] EWHC 1842 (Ch) provides legal and insolvency practitioners with guidance as to the test to be applied when considering whether a third-party costs order should be made against a liquidator who takes steps against an alleged de facto director of the company in liquidation. In this case, the step concerned was an application for public examination pursuant to section 133(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Section 133 Application).
As the end of Covid restrictions rapidly approaches in the UK, a number of businesses are considering how they might deal with the issue of debts which have built up since the start of the first lockdown in March 2020. Whilst an encouraging number of companies have been able to avoid formal insolvency proceedings, the various Government support schemes and restrictions on enforcement action, which were introduced to help companies navigate the pandemic, have led to significant liabilities accruing on balance sheets.
As Covid-19 restrictions in the UK gradually come to an end, the need for distressed tenants to be able to reorganise their liabilities to efficiently deal with the pandemic’s impact upon their balance sheets is likely to result in a number looking to use restructuring plans and CVAs.
Thankfully, a trio of significant recent cases, New Look1, Virgin Active2 and Regis3, have provided helpful and timely guidance regarding the use of such processes.