Few things go together as naturally as fraud and insolvency. The pattern is now well rehearsed: scams pile up unnoticed while money flows in the good times, but when recession hits, increased scrutiny from lenders, counterparties and the tax man – not to mention insolvency practitioners – means fraud is far more likely to be discovered.
The Covid-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the economy. This has given rise to an increasing number of claimants with claims against insolvent businesses.
In these circumstances, a third-party claimant would usually notify the company’s insolvency practitioner of its claim. The claimant is then required to pursue its recovery as part of the insolvency process alongside other creditors.
The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act)1
The UK’s new “restructuring plan” was enacted in June 2020.1 This highly-anticipated regime introduced (for the first time into English law) a tongue twisting “cross-class cram down” (CCCD) mechanism by which a restructuring plan can (at the court’s discretion) be imposed on an entire class of dissenting creditors or members.
Until recently, only two companies had successfully used the restructuring plan regime.2 In both instances, CCCD was not considered as the required voting thresholds (i.e. 75%) were met.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and the far reaching and drastic measures implemented in numerous countries around the world, we are receiving an increasing number of insolvency and restructuring enquiries from our clients.
As previously reported, the UK Government has announced that it will urgently bring forward proposed reforms to the corporate insolvency regime, to give "breathing space" to companies in financial difficulty as a result of Covid-19. The proposed reforms, based on a consultation in 2018, include new restructuring and temporary moratorium procedures.
The appeal decision of the Full Federal Court in AIG Australia Limited v Kaboko Mining Limited confirmed that an insolvency exclusion was not triggered where a cause of action by a company against its former directors did not contain allegations of insolvency, notwithstanding that the directors’ actions arguably led to the company’s insolvency.
Background
In December 2018, NSW building certifier Watson Oldco entered into voluntary administration. The AFR reports that administrators have attributed the move largely to the result of uninsured exposure to potential claims arising from buildings with combustible cladding. Although there were no known claims against Watson Oldco, it was reported that there was uninsured exposure which led to the decision to place the company into voluntary administration.
The decision in Kaboko Mining Limited v Van Heerden (No 3)1 highlights the importance of considering carefully both the pleaded causes of action, as well as the underlying facts of a claim, to determine whether it ‘arises out of, is based upon or attributable to’ a particular event or circumstance that could trigger an exclusion.
Background
New legislation has been introduced in the UK which restricts the rights of parties to construction contracts to terminate or even suspend work. This means that even if your contract says you can terminate or suspend – for example, for non-payment – you may not in the future be able to exercise this right. These reforms are likely to lead to significant changes to how parties operate their contracts and credit lines.
The highly anticipated Insolvency and Corporate Governance Bill (the "Bill") was finally published on 20 May 2020. Following its second and third readings in the House of Commons yesterday (3 June 2020), the Bill will now be considered by the House of Lords in the coming days.