We reported in September that New Look's CVA had been approved by creditors, including provision for 400 of its store rents to be linked to turnover - see https://blog.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/post/102gf9i/a-new-look-for-commercial-rents

However, it seems that the controversial CVA is now going to be challenged in the courts by a number of the landlord creditors, including British Land and Land Securities. This will obviously be unwelcome news for the retailer on top of the arrival of a second lockdown, which will inevitably cause further disruption for its business.

The damage that the COVID pandemic has done to the food and beverage sector has been widely reported. Plenty of well-known and well-loved restaurants and pubs have entered into an insolvency process or formally restructured their debts in an effort to survive.

This summer’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] UKSC 25 (“Bresco”) would have doubtless been interesting news for Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) engaged in the construction sector.

Following its decision in July to consider restructuring options in light of its mounting debts, the popular restaurant chain Pizza Hut has reached an agreement with its creditors by way of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that will see 215 of its 244 restaurants (88%) continue trading, as well as retaining around 5,000 of its 5,450 employees (92%).

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force on 26 June 2020 introducing a number of temporary and more permanent reforms, summarised in my colleague Jess’ post here.

Following the recent Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, it is clear that companies in liquidation have the right to adjudicate a dispute. However, a successful adjudication is only half the battle: the insolvent company must still persuade the court to enforce the decision.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act came into force on 26 June 2020 introducing a number of reforms aimed at providing protection to companies in financial distress, particularly as a result of the COVID19 pandemic.

However, the reforms present a number of potential problems to suppliers. Specifically, a permanent provision has been added to the Insolvency Act 1986 which:

Since Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd’s request for Government loan was denied (see the post by my colleague, Jess), the airline has announced plans for a private-only solvent recapitalisation to "rebuild its balance sheet" and "welcome passengers back".

It is an unfortunate reality that the number of insolvencies in the construction sector seems certain to rise in coming months as the economic impact of COVID-19 takes effect. In this context, the recent Supreme Court decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (In Liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 is particularly relevant.

This case concerned important questions regarding the compatibility of two statutory regimes:

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices