The UK's Supreme Court ("UKSC") has handed down its judgment following the hearing of the appeal in the case of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 ("Marex"). The appeal was against the decision of the Court of Appeal to find that the rule of reflective loss applied to 90% of Marex's claim, which was brought in its capacity as a creditor.
The appeal was unanimously allowed by UKSC and it confirmed the rule did not extend to creditors.
The government’s temporary changes to the insolvency rules to cater for Covid-19 – in particular the new restrictions on the presentation of winding-up petitions – have been well-publicised. These have now been packaged within an Act (the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (“CIGA”)) which also brought in significant, permanent changes to UK insolvency law.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA 2020) came into force overnight on Friday 26 June and will have a significant impact on contracts and contract management, in the construction sector, and many others.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) came into effect on 26 June 2020. Whilst the Act makes a number of changes to the insolvency regime (which are detailed in our Restructuring and Insolvency team's previous article), the focus of this section of the article is the potential effects of the CIGA from a pensions perspective.
Key message
On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the "CIGA") came into effect. As anticipated in our previous article the CIGA was fast-tracked through Parliament and some amendments were ultimately made prior to it becoming law.
The Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill became law today - having had its first reading just over a month ago.
In summary, the provisions in the Act allow for:
Two of the classic self-help remedies open to landlords for recovering commercial rent arrears have traditionally been forfeiture and Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR), but both of these have been restricted as a result of Government measures to support tenants during the coronavirus crisis. There is also a proposed ban on winding-up petitions for coronavirus-related debts, which is already being applied by the courts.
Amended CRAR Regulations
Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch)
Back in November we reported on the case of Wallace v Wallace [2019] EWHC 2503 (Ch), where the Court grappled with the diverging authorities on the issue of whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect.
The issue recently came back before the Court in Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).
What did the Court decide?
In a case that is sure to keep lawyers talking for months, the Supreme Court has decided the important case of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd.
The case concerns the relationship between the statutory adjudication and insolvency set-off regimes.
The webinar looked at the widely debated issue of whether a company in liquidation can commence an adjudication by examining three recent cases on this topic.
Bresco v Michael J Lonsdale
The first being the Court of Appeal decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 27, which has recently been heard in the Supreme Court but whose judgment is awaited.
Background