Highlights

Subject to exceptions, a director of a company that enters into liquidation is restricted from being involved in the management of a new or existing company (SecondCo) with the same or a sufficiently similar name to that of the liquidating company (section 216 Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)). If in breach of s.216, a director will have personal liability for all the relevant debts SecondCo incurred during the period of the breach under s.217 IA 1986.

In September 2020, I wrote a piece on the above case in the Chancery Division of the High Court, which can be found here and here.

The High Court recently dismissed a landlord creditor's application to overturn a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) initiated by coffee shop chain Caffé Nero. Here, we recap the key facts of the case and summarise the highlights of the High Court's ruling.

The facts

In November 2020, Caffé Nero – hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic – proposed a CVA to creditors to compromise rent arrears (at 30p in the £1) and reduce future rents for the company's premises.

The German court has published LG München I v. 13.07.2021 - 6 O 17571/20 – the first published ruling on COVInsAG. We unpack the key takeaways from the decision below.

Background

To mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic, the German government passed the COVID-19 Insolvency Suspension Act (COVInsAG) to temporarily suspend the obligation on directors to file for insolvency where the debtor's insolvency was due to the pandemic. The COVInsAG (Section 2(1) Nos.2 and 4) also suspends large parts of the rules on insolvency avoidance.

The New Zealand economy has weathered the COVID-19 pandemic better than many commentators predicted in April last year, in part due to the significant economic stimulus from the government, coupled with record high house prices and rock bottom interest rates. This is reflected in RITANZ's latest formal insolvency statistics, which show record low liquidation application numbers for September 2021 compared to the three previous years.

In Ristorante Limited T/A Bar Massimo v Zurich Insurance Plc [2021] EWHC 2538 (Ch), the Court considered the interpretation and legal effect of a question asked by an insurer to a prospective insured around prior insolvency issues. The insured agreed with the insurer’s question, as framed, that there were no prior insolvency issues. Insurers failed in their attempt to avoid the policy for breach of the duty of fair presentation based on alleged misrepresentation. Insolvency events in relation to other companies did not need to be disclosed.

In a decision that will likely impact bankruptcy proceedings around the country, the Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of certiorari of David Hargreaves, which challenged the equitable mootness doctrine.¹ As a result, the concept of equitable mootness remains anything but moot.

Whether—and in what circumstances—a debtor should pay creditors a make-whole premium continues to be litigated in bankruptcy courts. Last week, as reported by Bloomberg, Judge Dorsey (Delaware) ruled that the debtor – Mallinckrodt Plc – did not need to pay a make whole premium to first lien lenders in order to reinstate such obligations under the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

Legislation Update

As foreshadowed in the last edition of Insolvency Insight the legislative provisions easing the restrictions on the presentation of winding up petitions entered into effect on 1 October 2021.