The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduces a new standalone moratorium procedure for companies. The moratorium is part of a package of significant legislative reforms contained in the Bill and intended to enhance the UK’s restructuring rescue culture. These were originally consulted on in 2018 and have now been fast-tracked to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is as of yet uncertain, one thing is clear: the global outbreak of COVID-19 has caused − and will likely continue to cause − a precipitous decrease in demand and supply as a result of quarantine orders, business closures, and social distancing, all aimed at flattening the curve of the pandemic. As a result, a dramatic and pronounced economic downturn is predicted as the pandemic’s impact touches virtually all businesses, regardless of geography or industry.

The EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency was published in the OJEU on Wednesday. Members states have until 17 July 2020 to implement it, and this includes the UK as it stands: the UK has much – but not all – of it already. The UK Government has its own plans for reforming insolvency law of course, including to re-introduce Crown Preference. It is mostly about creating a rescue framework.

After years of Spanish non-performing loan (NPL) sales, a significant hurdle preventing purchasers from enforcing the underlying loans has now been removed.

Basel and other regulators seem to regard credit risk as being under control and have identified reputational and IT risks – risk you cannot close off with prudential capital charges – as the sources of the next crisis. Another one being talked about is potential illiquidity for funds, which are buying more illiquid assets in the hunt for yield.

Scope 

The recast EIR continues to apply to all European member states other than Denmark and has been extended in scope to new categories of proceedings, including rehabilitation proceedings, which are set out in annex A. The emphasis remains on collective proceedings and, consequently, the UK’s receivership and administrative receivership regimes remain outside the scope of the recast regulation. 

The recent case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) (Singularis) is an important decision affecting any institution that handles client payments, including banks. It decided that a stock broker was liable in negligence for having breached its duty of care to its customer, Singularis Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (Singularis), by paying monies out of its client account on the instruction of one of Singularis' directors and its only shareholder, Mr Al Sanea.

Background

The use of pre-packs or pre-positioned asset sales in Australia has traditionally been limited. This is a result of impediments to such transactions under the Australian legislative insolvency regime.

The interplay of these impeding factors means that there are few true pre-pack transactions in Australia. However, significant reform to the Australian insolvency regime is expected to be implemented in 2017. We wrote about the main aspects of that reform in our last article, `Australian insolvency law reforms aim to increase business restructuring opportunities'

The liability regime under Section 64 sentence 1 GmbHG and Sections 92 para. 2, 93 para. 3 Nr. 6 AktG for payments made after the company’s insolvency imposes severe personal liability risk on the management of limited liability companies and stock corporations. This does not only apply to the management of German limited liability companies (“GmbH”) and stock corporations (“AG”) but also to companies incorporated under foreign law that have their centre of main interest in Germany, as the European Court of Justice has decided just recently.

In Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v The Trust Co (PTAL) Limited, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2015] FCA 850, the Federal Court of Australia had to determine whether to dismiss the proceedings for failure to comply with previous orders for security for costs, or vary those orders for security. The basis upon which the Court made the orders for security in the first place is set out in Austcorp Project Number 20 Pty Ltd v LM Investment Management Ltd [2014] FCA 1371, and was canvassed in an ear