In the second part of our coverage of the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Act 2020 (the Act), we consider amendments made to certain insolvency provisions of the Companies Act 2014 (the 2014 Act). All of these measures apply for an "interim period", expiring on 31 December 2020 (unless extended by Government).
Dividends
Cory Bebb looks at a recent unsuccessful attempt by Administrators to block an £18.6M misfeasance claim by contributories.
“All cats are animals, but all animals are not cats” - former administrators’ attempt to stop £18.6M misfeasance claim based upon their CVA release clause, fails in a provisional ruling: Re Rhino Enterprise Properties Limited [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch)
Under section 64 of the German Companies Act (GmbHG), the managing director of a company is obliged to reimburse payments which have been made after the company becomes illiquid or over-indebted but not when the payments are made with the diligence of a prudent businessman. Such permitted payments include those that are necessary for production, internal operation, and the maintenance of the business concern.
This is a service specifically targeted at the needs of busy non-executive directors. We aim to give you a “heads up” on the things that matter for NEDs in the week ahead – all in two minutes or less.
As we head towards the last part of 2020 in the midst of a recession and some of the most challenging business conditions many have ever faced, it is worthwhile considering the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Then, in the real estate funds space, there was a shift away from pooled investments through funds and an uptick in real estate joint ventures, as investors sought to take greater control over their investments.
Despite the extension of the insolvent trading moratorium, directors should still satisfy the usual requirements of the safe harbour against insolvent trading if they can.
The English Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. The key issue the case has dealt with is the scope of the reflective loss principle in English law. This might not mean much to the average person, but the decision is potentially ground-breaking for creditors of companies seeking justice. This short article explains why.
The reflective loss principle
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unparalleled disruption to the judiciary, which has been presented with logistical hurdles as well as acute legal issues to tackle.
This article summarises some notable recent caselaw concerning the fallout from the pandemic. Broadly, the judiciary has adopted a strict but fair approach when parties have sought leniency due to the impact of COVID-19. Courts have not looked kindly on those who are seen to be unfairly capitalising on the disruption but, where merited, parties have been granted clemency.
The Government has implemented significant temporary measures to ensure that our insolvency laws and processes do not expose companies and individuals to undue risk. This will hopefully avoid a potentially unprecedented wave of insolvencies.
Key takeouts
The Government announced a six month suspension of insolvent trading laws.
The relevant debts will still be due and payable by the company in the normal way.
Egregious cases of dishonesty and fraud will still be subject to criminal penalties.
In this week’s update: designated members of an insolvent LLP breached their fiduciary duties when they agreed to waive a debt owed to the LLP, a gift of shares was effective, even though there was no evidence of an executed instrument of transfer and the Pre-Emption Group extends the relaxation of its principles to 30 November 2020.