The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was recently introduced into Parliament. While the effects of some of the changes proposed are intended to be only temporary, they have potential consequences for pension schemes.

Changes of particular relevance are as follows:

• Restrictions on the use of statutory demands for winding up petitions.
• New Moratorium process
• Court approved corporate restructuring plan

The Bill received its second and third readings on 3 June 2020 and will now go to the House of Lords for consideration.

The government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which, if passed, will significantly restrict suppliers’ ability to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes.

That the current pandemic has thrown a curveball at many businesses is a given.

At the end of February, the Bank of Scotland Business Barometer reported that overall business confidence in the UK was at a net balance of 23%. Only two months later and confidence plunged to minus 29%.

The government has introduced fundamental changes to the procedures for presenting winding-up petitions and making winding-up orders in the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill.

A recent Sheriff Court judgment is the latest decision to consider the role and remit of the court reporter in a liquidation which, unusually, involved the court appointing two reporters.

In Scotland, the Insolvency (Scotland) (Receivership and Winding Up) Rules 2018 provide that where there is no creditors committee, the remuneration of a liquidator shall be fixed by the court. In practice, the court appoints a reporter to examine and audit the liquidator’s accounts and to report on the amount of remuneration to be paid.

On top of the multiple challenges hitting retail and leisure landlords and occupiers arising from COVID-19, the news that Intu has had to write down the value of its shopping centre portfolio by nearly £2 billion came as further bad news.

It seems that business disruption due to coronavirus is pretty inevitable. What should you as a company director be doing if the disruption means your business starts to suffer?

What changes for me as a director?

As a director, you know that you owe duties to the company. When the business starts heading towards insolvency, there is a change of emphasis and instead of doing what is best for the shareholders, you have to change and consider what the consequences of your actions will be for the company’s creditors.

THE ISSUE

In a recent judgment, i.e., on 17 January 2020, the Indian appellate insolvency tribunal, namely, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) held in M. Ravindranath Reddy v. G. Kishan, that the lease of immovable property cannot be considered as supply of goods or rendering any services and therefore the due amount cannot fall within the definition of operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).

In the winter of 2015, the Indian Legislature sought to tackle the persistent problem of bad debts affecting Indian financial institutions and trade creditors by enacting the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”), which was finally notified in May 2016. The key purpose of the enactment was to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons / entities. 

Against the backdrop of the insolvency of Scottish companies carrying on business in India, a recent decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session has considered the competency of seeking declaratory orders in petition procedure.

Background

In October 2016, we reported on a Court of Session decision which concerned three Scottish registered companies carrying on business in India and which had been placed into administration under the Insolvency Act 1986.

Can a Creditors Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) lead to a stay in the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision?

In January of this year the Court of Appeal refused to stay enforcement of an adjudication award due to a CVA ((1838) Cannon Corporate Limited v Primus Build Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 27). Four months later another enforcement decision against a company subject to a CVA came before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC). This time a stay was granted – so what was the difference?