Introduction

Editor, Jonathan Spearing

Welcome to the ninth edition of Commodities in Focus (CIF); our bulletin for clients engaged in the production, trading, carriage, storage and financing of commodities.

With the news that the Arcadia Group has entered administration, suppliers of goods and services are left with a number of questions: what happens next, and can they still get paid? The answers to such issues have recently been drastically altered by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) 2020. Its impact is discussed in the eight key points considered below.

What would happen in ‘normal’ circumstances? A manageable problem

Recent months have brought unprecedented challenges to businesses, with no sector immune to the economic repercussions of the pandemic. Yet despite headline news of certain high-profile restructurings and insolvencies, such as Virgin Atlantic, Debenhams, and Edinburgh Woollen Mill, it seems the emergency measures implemented by the UK Government have, to a degree, staved off wide spread economic collapse that may otherwise have been inevitable.

This note considers how the recent changes to UK insolvency law introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA") might affect those involved in the sale and purchase of commodities. In particular, it looks at the impact of Section 14 of CIGA on contracts for the supply of goods or services, and on the typical rights and remedies of the seller / supplier under such contracts.

In the latest edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood's Asia restructuring and insolvency team touch on key changes in Singapore brought about by the recent Singapore Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (and where applicable, the impact on the shipping industry), and the positions in Singapore and Hong Kong on winding up petitions vs arbitration clauses.

Content

Get to know the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") Winding up petitions vs arbitration clauses (SG) The prima facie standard of review prevails

Following yesterday’s announcement that a number of the temporary measures brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) to ease pressures on companies most at risk of insolvency during the ongoing Covid-19 crisis are to be extended, we look here at some of the key questions arising under CIGA in the context of the commercial landlord and tenant relationship.

Background

The Finance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 22 July 2020 and will restore HMRC as a preferential creditor on insolvency (Crown Preference) with effect from 1 December 2020.

There had been speculation that the Government would shelve or at least postpone the reintroduction of Crown Preference in the wake of Covid-19. In fact, even before the pandemic, the proposals had been widely criticised by the restructuring and insolvency industry as harmful to the UK’s corporate rescue culture.

The English Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. The key issue the case has dealt with is the scope of the reflective loss principle in English law. This might not mean much to the average person, but the decision is potentially ground-breaking for creditors of companies seeking justice. This short article explains why.

The reflective loss principle

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited CACV 158/2017 (date of judgment 5 August 2020)¹

Introduction

What does the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) do?

CIGA introduces various changes to various provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006.

Some of these changes are designed to be permanent changes to the insolvency landscape (largely implementing proposals for insolvency law reform introduced in 2018) – for example, the introduction of a moratorium, a ban on termination provisions (also known as ipso facto clauses) and a new pre-insolvency rescue and restructuring regime.