This first article comments on the temporary measures that are designed to alleviate the economic impact of COVID-19, namely the suspension of wrongful trading and restrictions placed on creditors serving statutory demands and winding-up petitions. These temporary provisions are intended to provide businesses with some breathing space during the current pandemic whilst they consider rescue options.

The decisions made and actions taken, or not taken, by companies and their directors in response to the COVID-19 crisis are being intensely scrutinised by regulators, shareholders, and creditors alike. It is anticipated that some businesses may face claims relating to their poor contingency planning and their practical and wider reactions to the crisis. So, an increase can be expected in claims on directors and officers (D&O) insurance policies.

The High Court has dismissed applications to restrain the presentation of winding up petitions for reasons relating to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Background

Under the Scheme, furloughed employees, whose services cannot be used due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, will not be permitted to work for their employer during the period of furlough but the employer will be able to apply for a grant from the government to cover the cost of continuing to pay the employees 80% of their salary up to a cap of £2,500 per month.

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.

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. 

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.

The High Court has held that a bank owed a duty of care to its customer when on notice that an agent acting for the customer was misusing his authority. In the case of Singularis Holdings Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch), a bank was liable in negligence to its customer since it was on notice that its customer was at risk of being defrauded by its director but failed to stop payments made for the purpose of misappropriating funds of the company.

The Facts