Following the outbreak of a global pandemic unprecedented in recent memory, the UK is now reeling from the devastating effects of the coronavirus. Small and medium-sized businesses throughout the nation will already have been forced to come to terms with this new reality, through a combination of staff illness, forced closures, supply chain disruption and loss of business.

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.

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.

Can they claim for the debts they are owed following the recent compulsory liquidation?

With the sad news that Thomas Cook entered into compulsory liquidation on Monday 23 September 2019, understandably the headlines have focused on the impact of the failure on those holidaymakers who require either repatriation or are now being forced to make alternative holiday arrangements. But what has been the impact on staff? As a global employer of 21,000 employees what are the consequences for them of Thomas Cook’s compulsory liquidation?

It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:

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:

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.