This note considers how the recent changes to UK insolvency law introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA") might affect those involved in the sale and purchase of commodities. In particular, it looks at the impact of Section 14 of CIGA on contracts for the supply of goods or services, and on the typical rights and remedies of the seller / supplier under such contracts.

In the latest edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood's Asia restructuring and insolvency team touch on key changes in Singapore brought about by the recent Singapore Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (and where applicable, the impact on the shipping industry), and the positions in Singapore and Hong Kong on winding up petitions vs arbitration clauses.

Content

Get to know the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 ("IRDA") Winding up petitions vs arbitration clauses (SG) The prima facie standard of review prevails

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.

Background

The Finance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 22 July 2020 and will restore HMRC as a preferential creditor on insolvency (Crown Preference) with effect from 1 December 2020.

There had been speculation that the Government would shelve or at least postpone the reintroduction of Crown Preference in the wake of Covid-19. In fact, even before the pandemic, the proposals had been widely criticised by the restructuring and insolvency industry as harmful to the UK’s corporate rescue culture.

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.

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited CACV 158/2017 (date of judgment 5 August 2020)¹

Introduction

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’.

Background:

What does the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) do?

CIGA introduces various changes to various provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Companies Act 2006.

Some of these changes are designed to be permanent changes to the insolvency landscape (largely implementing proposals for insolvency law reform introduced in 2018) – for example, the introduction of a moratorium, a ban on termination provisions (also known as ipso facto clauses) and a new pre-insolvency rescue and restructuring regime.