In a recent post, I discussed three situations in which a debtor in bankruptcy might find itself dispossessed of assets that appeared to be property of the bankruptcy estate. This article expands on that general idea and presents a compendium of situations in which creditors or circumstances may deprive a debtor of assets or their value.
Editor’s Note: this is likely not an asset upon which you should base your reorganization – see below.
While the world wrestles with the day-to-day realities of the pandemic, 2021 will bring further challenges. With the memory of the litigious and regulatory aftermath of the global financial crisis still fresh, what should be on your radar?
1. Disputed margin calls and close-outs
The new National Security and Investment Bill, which aims to provide the Government with the necessary powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions to protect national security, will introduce a mandatory notification regime across 17 sectors in the UK economy. Although the Bill provides a carve-out for rights exercisable by administrators, insolvency practitioners will still need to be mindful of the risks that the Bill may have on distressed M&A transactions, which may be rendered void if captured by the regime and the notification requirements not complied with.
Recent M&A deals the teams have worked on involving insolvent corporates have highlighted the challenges which exist around the transfer of customer lists and databases, which are often a significant asset for the buyer.
Where the contractor has become insolvent, what obligations can an employer enforce when stepping-in to a previously novated professional consultant’s appointment in a design and build scenario?
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 was passed on 25 June 2020. The legislation has been in contemplation for a number of years, and has implemented a significant reform to the UK's restructuring and insolvency framework. It has also implemented certain temporary measures that are designed to protect and support businesses, protect jobs and, in doing so, attempt to preserve the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Recent Hong Kong cases have highlighted varying approaches regarding the impact of arbitration clauses on insolvency proceedings, in particular, on the Court’s discretion to make a winding-up order where a debt is disputed.
Recent judgments have varied between the so-called Traditional Approach which requires the company-debtor to show a genuine dispute on substantial grounds and the Lasmos Approach which requires the company only to commence arbitration in a timely manner.
Summary
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) came into force on 26 June 2020 after a fast-tracked consultation process. Intended to provide a lifeline to struggling businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond, it consists of temporary measures, meant to alleviate the short-term disruption caused by the pandemic and permanent measures, which are more broadly designed to assist companies in times of difficulty.
As most global markets attempt a return to normal (or a new form of normal) business, it is hard to imagine a sector or an industry that isn’t already reeling from the effects of the past three months. Getting back on your feet is hard enough in the current environment, without having to worry about further setbacks impacting your business. But how would you react if your key supplier called tomorrow to let you know that they were insolvent and unable to provide you with goods or services?
For some time we have been following with interest the case of Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd as it progresses through the courts. Why? Because this concerns an important question which comes up time and time again: are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency set off compatible?