The Insolvency Service has released the latest insolvency statistics (to September 2020). 

These figures are particularly interesting as they shed light on the effects of the various changes to the insolvency landscape that have occurred since Covid-19 started to affect the economy.

Since March 2020, we have seen the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act ("CIGA"), Government schemes and lockdowns of various sizes, shapes and geographical restrictions. 

One of the temporary measures that was not extended was the disapplication of the wrongful trading rules of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards the personal liability of company directors. The discontinuation of the temporary protection has been criticised by business and most recently by the Institute of Directors (IoD) which commented that "Failing to extend the suspension of wrongful trading rules was a mistake. Without this protection, the pressure is on directors to simply shut up shop when faced with difficulty". Is that concern justified?

Insolvency legislation has been coming thick and fast in recent months, and this time it's pre pack sales to connected parties that are facing further scrutiny.  

The concern is that the voluntary measures which were put in place a few years ago have not provided enough transparency so new legislative measures are on the horizon. On 8 October the UK Government published a set of draft Regulations which will tighten up the processes around pre-pack sales to connected parties.

What is a pre pack?

The English courts are known for being pro-arbitration. In the recent case of Riverrock Securities Limited v International Bank of St Petersburg (Joint Stock Company) [2020] EWHC 2483 (Comm) the English High Court has granted an anti-suit injunction in relation to claims being made in foreign bankruptcy proceedings, where the underlying agreements included arbitration provisions with a London seat.

The parties

The UK Government has issued secondary legislation extending the period of applicability of certain temporary provisions of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”).

For litigators the most important provision is the extension of the restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 December 2020. The Act, of course, provides that no winding up petition can be presented on the basis of a statutory demand during the relevant restricted period and that where a winding up petition is presented (by a creditor on any basis) a court must be satisfied that coronavirus has not had a "financial effect" on the company before the presentation of the petition.

The statutory provisions for Restructuring Plans form a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. CIGA was brought into force on June 26, 2020 and at a hearing in the High Court in London on September 2, 2020, the plan proposed by Virgin Atlantic, which was the first to be brought before the courts, was sanctioned.

InTelnic Ltd v Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH [2020] EWHC 2075 (Ch), Sir Geoffrey Vos sitting in the English High Court ruled that where a debt is governed by an arbitration agreement, it is appropriate for the Court to stay or dismiss a winding up petition without investigating whether the debt is disputed in good faith and on substantial grounds.

This case provides guidance on the high threshold a creditor will have to cross in order to be able to present a winding up petition for sums due under an agreement with an arbitration clause.

WHO WILL ADVOCATE FOR THE "HUMBLE" FLOATING CHARGE-HOLDER?[1]

Introduction

Having managed to undertake my first piece of business development last Friday by playing golf with a client and a couple of colleagues - all socially distanced of course - I then managed to avoid most of the news at the weekend.  

When Monday morning came and I logged on to my home desk I was therefore feeling rather chipper. Sadly the feeling didn't last long as I then read that: