The Court has granted one of the first Winding Up Orders under CIGA 2020.
The winding up petition had been issued on 1 May 2020, 8 weeks before CIGA 2020 came in to force, but after 27 April 2020, the date from which CIGA 2020 applies retrospectively. As a result, the petitioner could not have ensured that the winding up petition satisfied the requirements of CIGA 2020, as those requirements were not in existence at the time that the petition was presented.
The liquidators of a subsidiary company had submitted a proof in the CVA of the parent company. The proof was based upon a claim under section 239 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) that certain payments by the parent to the subsidiary had amounted to unlawful preferences of the company. The liquidators appealed against the decision by the supervisor of the CVA to reject that proof.
Following the Insolvency Service’s announcement that it will produce monthly (as opposed to quarterly) company and individual statistics for England and Wales, to assist the Government and the insolvency sector in monitoring the impact of COVID19, the results for July showed that:
The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has recently issued a press release regarding proposed changes in the law to better protect consumers in the event that a company, and in particular a retailer, becomes insolvent.
Under existing law, if a company becomes insolvent but goods prepaid for are still in its possession, they may be considered as assets belonging to the business and can be used by administrators to pay off the company’s debts.
As we discussed in our July newsletter, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) has introduced a new Restructuring Plan, which is similar to existing Schemes of Arrangement. In essence a Court can sanction a restructuring plan which binds a dissenting class of creditors, if that class would be in no worse a position than the most likely alternative.
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.
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.
In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.
A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.
The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.