On 12 May 2021, the UK Government introduced the snappily titled “Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill”.

It is unfortunately a common story for anyone who has been in business for any length of time: the unscrupulous director who, rather than confront creditors in an insolvency process, simply disappears as if by magic by dissolving the company and re-appearing elsewhere moments later, leaving creditors clasping nothing but smoke. This loophole has frustrated creditors for many years as it means their only remaining option is a commercially unattractive application to restore the company to the register in order to petition to place the company into compulsory liquidation.

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID

General Scheme of Companies (Small Company Administrative Rescue Process and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 (“SCARP”) just published

The COVID-19 pandemic has led successful resolution applicants to seek withdrawals of, or modifications to, approved resolution plans. This article examines the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on claims of force majeure in the resolution process of Amtek Auto.

The fact that more businesses have not failed is the most surprising thing about the Covid-19 pandemic. However, if you look at the fashion retail sector alone, the list of some of the high profile casualties is alarming: Arcadia Group, Bonmarché, Debenhams, DW Sports, Laura Ashley, M&Co, Monsoon, Moss Bros, Oasis and Warehouse, Peacock and Jaeger, TM Lewin and Victoria’s Secret (UK Business)… with more expected.

Summary

The much anticipated judgement of Mr Justice Snowden in relation to a restructuring plan proposal (the “Plans”) made by Virgin Active Holdings Limited, Virgin Active Limited and Virgin Active Health Clubs Limited (the “Plan Companies”) was handed down on 12 May 2021.

In the recent case of TMG Brokers Ltd (In Liquidation) (also known as: Baker v Staines) the High Court held a director of a company to be jointly and severally liable for payments made by his co-director out of the company’s bank account which were made without proper authority and amounted to disguised distributions of capital. The fact that he had placed trust in the other director for the company's financial affairs did not excuse him from performing his duties.

Background

NEWSLETTER A WORD OF COUNSEL 1st Edition 2021 (12th Issue) ww.dvc.hk IN THIS ISSUE Who was appointed to act as a provisional liquidator for UA Cinemas? PAGE 54 Who from DVC appeared in this year's inaugural edition of the Legal 500 (2020-2021) Hong Kong Edition? PAGE 56 What are the limits to the Irregularity Principle and what remedies are available to an aggrieved Director? PAGE 33 Why is reform needed in HK's mental health arena?

Christopher Buckingham acted for the Secretary of State in Re Javazzi Limited (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 1239 (Ch).