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?
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has passed an order reiterating that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the successful resolution applicant cannot be permitted to be withdraw its plan.
RELEVANT FACTS
A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.
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.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.
In continuation of Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) efforts to ease financial stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the RBI issued the circular on the Resolution Framework for Covid-19 Related Stress dated 6 August 2020 (August 6 Circular). The August 6 Circular creates a limited time window for certain categories of borrowers affected by Covid-19 pandemic related business disruption to be allowed resolution plans in the nature of restructuring while permitting the borrower accounts to retain their status as ‘standard’.