Why has it been difficult to get a winding-up order?

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) came into force on 26 June. Under CIGA 2020, creditors are (currently until 30 September 2020, although the period may be extended) unable to present a winding-up petition on the basis of:

CIGA 2020 which received the Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 has introduced several significant changes to UK insolvency legislation. Some of these are temporary measures enacted in response to the Coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the effects of the lockdown. Others, however, are permanent measures that result from a consultation process to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 begun in 2016 and concluded in 2018.

The rapid onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the drastic lockdown restrictions, has left many businesses – particularly those that rely on heavy footfall – in dire financial circumstances.

Businesses are therefore seeking tools to help them weather this storm and light-touch administration is an option that continues to rear its head.

What is it?

Yesterday (30 July), the Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics for April to June 2020 (Q2 20).

Some may be surprised to learn that, during these uncertain times, company insolvencies in England and Wales have declined by one-third compared to the same quarter ending June 2019 (Q2 19).

By way of a breakdown, and by comparing Q2 20 with Q2 19, the numbers of:

The first half of 2020 saw a wave of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) as companies explored their restructuring options against the backdrop of a darkening economic outlook.

In this case the court considered a debtor’s application to set aside a bankruptcy order made in her absence (due to self-isolation in accordance with Covid-19 guidelines). It was held that the fact that the debtor was bankrupt meant she had no standing to apply to set the order aside. The court accepted that the debtor had a good reason not to attend court, and had acted promptly to set the order aside, however legal precedent going back to the 1990’s meant that only a trustee in bankruptcy could challenge the liability orders. 

This case was heard before CIGA came into force but the provisions of the CIG Bill were known. Statutory demands were served on 27 March 2020 on the company in respect of debts due under loan agreements and a winding up petition had been presented. The company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition, claiming that although it was insolvent it had been prevented from obtaining funding, to enable it to propose a scheme of arrangement to its unsecured creditors, as a result of the pandemic.

The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.

A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.

The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.