The government has responded to intense pressure from the restructuring and insolvency community by announcing measures to 'protect companies hit by COVID-19'. Insolvency law will be amended 'to give companies breathing space and keep trading while they explore options for rescue'.
RAAs are a statutory restructuring mechanism which operate by apportioning the departing employer’s share of liability between it and remaining employers. As an RAA can be entered before the insolvency process is initiated, RAAs can permit corporate restructuring in response to financial hardship without triggering the departing employer’s insolvency.
Companies are now faced with unprecedented challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic. In this context, company directors will be trying to do everything they can to protect and preserve the business. However, they do still need to remember their legal duties, so as not to expose themselves to the risk of personal liability if their actions go beyond what the law allows.
Practical steps which directors should be taking now, as explained in more detail below include:
Many readers will be aware of the recent, sudden closure during service of Mayfair restaurant “The Square”, which left staff out of work and out of pocket after January’s wages remained unpaid.
Sadly this is by no means an isolated example, as every year thousands of bars and restaurants ‘go under’, but there are steps you can take to protect your position as an employee.
Keep Informed
Not all employers keep their staff updated on the financial health of the company, particularly when its struggling.
2019 was for many a year of waiting…we waited, and waited and indeed still wait…for Brexit. That inevitably has had an impact on the property world and in particular the investment market experiencing a degree of inactivity. Somewhat ironically though Brexit has given us one of several important decisions in 2019 relevant to the Real Estate Disputes world.
In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Ors [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986.
In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana SA & Others [2019], the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends can be challenged as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the '1986 Act').
The first instance decision:
In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.
In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.
We summarise the key legislative changes planned by government relating to insolvency and corporate governance and focus on what they mean for investors, including the private equity community
The rules on contingent assets are broadly as for last year but there are developments to note. Recertification can take longer than expected if there have been changes in relation to an asset.
Trustees and sponsors should be preparing for the recertification of contingent assets that are to remain in place with a view to levy advantage for the 2018/19 year. If there have been changes in relation to a contingent asset, recertification may take materially longer than otherwise.
With residential leasehold law in the spotlight, landlords should be aware of a recent court case which focused upon the method of calculating the premium payable for a residential lease extension.