The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. It implements the measures announced by the UK government on 23 April 2020 to safeguard against aggressive rent collection tactics. It follows the ban on forfeiture for non-payment of rent contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which came into effect on 25 March 2020. In this article, DLA Piper’s experienced Real Estate and Restructuring lawyers assess the debt collection restrictions contained in both Acts.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a range of changes to UK insolvency law of a magnitude not seen since the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2002. One of the reforms included in the Act is a wide ranging prohibition on the operation of termination clauses in contracts for the supply of goods and/or services where the counterparty enters a relevant insolvency process.

What do the provisions do?

Under the new provisions, suppliers will be prevented from:

You must have been in isolation if you haven’t heard or read about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco v Lonsdale. It has been hailed by some as opening the floodgates to adjudications by insolvent companies. But as a series of recent judgments show, there remain a number of obstacles that will need to be overcome by insolvent entities seeking to enforce an adjudication award.

The background

The first bank resolution under the new European bank resolution regime is currently taking place in Austria: the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA), the official government regulator for banks, funds and financial institutions, is busy with the resolution of HETA Asset Resolution AG (HETA - formerly Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank International AG).

On 30 May 2018, Law No. 22 of 2018 with respect to the Reorganization and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was introduced in the Kingdom of Bahrain (Bahrain), repealing Legislative Decree No. 11 of 1987 with respect to the Bankruptcy and Composition Law (the Old Law). The Bankruptcy Law recently came into force on 7 December 2018 and represents a modern and extensive reformulation of the bankruptcy regime in Bahrain.

Application to debtors

An attempt to reform and rationalize the Belgian Bankruptcy Act of 8 August 1997 and the Continuity of Enterprises Act of 31 January 2009 included the introduction of a "silent bankruptcy" that offered distressed companies the opportunity to prepare for a real bankruptcy discreetly and without any publicity, along the lines of the UK's pre-pack procedures.

While the bill was adopted in mid-July 2017 and will apply to insolvency proceedings opened on or after 1 May 2018, the attempt to include pre-pack procedures in the reform has failed.

This spring

On January 17, 2020, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that the Alberta Securities Commission’s (the “ASC”) administrative penalties against Theodor Hennig (“Hennig”) survived Hennig’s discharge in bankruptcy. This decision marks the first time a Canadian court has considered securities regulatory penalties within the context of subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in Orphan Well Association et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited et al., 2019 SCC 5, commonly referred to as “Redwater”. Specifically, Redwater clarifies the priority as between environmental obligations and those afforded to secured creditors in insolvency proceedings.

On January 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in Orphan Well Association et al. v. Grant Thornton Limited et al., 2019 SCC 5, commonly referred to as “Redwater”. Specifically, Redwater clarifies the priority as between environmental obligations and those afforded to secured creditors in insolvency proceedings.

When a financing statement is registered to perfect a security interest in collateral, it is the responsibility of the secured party to monitor the registration to ensure that a new financing statement is filed if the goods move jurisdictions. A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice1 emphasizes this point.

Facts