In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.

The Insolvency Service has today (9 September 2021) announced a phased end (commencing on 1 October 2021) to the temporary insolvency measures which remain as a result of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) and the various extensions to the relevant period (announcement).

The headline measures are as follows:

A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.

The latest announcements

Suffering with mental health problems and being in financial difficulty are often strongly linked, with one frequently causing or worsening the other. The introduction of The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’), which, with very limited exceptions, came into force on 4 May 2021, allows an eligible individual breathing space from any action a creditor may take for a ‘problem debt’.

Not only was 4 May Star Wars Day this year, it was also the day The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (referred to in this article as the ‘debt respite regulations’) came into force.

Introduction

The High Court dismissed landlords’ challenges to the terms of New Look’s company voluntary arrangement (CVA) last week in a ruling that has sparked lively debate within both the landlord and restructuring sectors.

The landlords challenged the CVA by way of three main limbs:

It is unfortunately a common story for anyone who has been in business for any length of time: the unscrupulous director who, rather than confront creditors in an insolvency process, simply disappears as if by magic by dissolving the company and re-appearing elsewhere moments later, leaving creditors clasping nothing but smoke. This loophole has frustrated creditors for many years as it means their only remaining option is a commercially unattractive application to restore the company to the register in order to petition to place the company into compulsory liquidation.

In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).

Key takeaways