The Supreme Court has recently released a decision on directors' duties, which should serve as a timely reminder to all directors of their duties under the Companies Act in circumstances of insolvency. Continuing to trade while insolvent will be a breach of your duties, even if you believe that overall creditors may be better off or the extent of losses will be reduced. It is however welcome confirmation for liquidators that the Courts will enforce the provisions of the Companies Act based on the clear wording of these sections.

In brief

Although the Sunbird scheme of arrangement was approved by the relevant creditors, sanction was refused by Mr. Justice Snowdon, who highlighted:

• a ‘paucity of information provided by the company as part of the scheme process’, and
• a failure to engage with creditors ‘whom the directors clearly felt were irrelevant or would be an obstacle to their plans’.

He remarked that the company’s approach 'fell a considerable distance short of what was required for a fair process'.

On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.

The United Kingdom Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced that certain temporary measures put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which became law on 26 June 2020, will be extended.

Statutory Demands and Winding-Up Petitions

Introduction

The Supreme Court last Thursday released its long awaited decision on directors duties engaged on a company’s insolvency – Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Cooper [2020] NZSC 100. The decision has profound implications for directors confronted with a business experiencing material financial distress and more broadly, for creditors, lenders and the insolvency profession.

近年来，早期设立的一批外商投资企业的经营期限将近届满，同时根据原《中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业法》设立的中外合资企业的公司治理结构的弊端也日益凸显，而部分外商投资企业形成已久的公司僵局也始终不见破局之法，因此外商投资企业的解散和清算已经成为外国投资者所关注的热点话题。

《中华人民共和国外商投资法》（“《外商投资法》”）及其实施条例已经从今年1月1日开始实施，但新的法律、法规并未在内容上对外商投资企业解散和清算这一问题进行强调或注解。而随着“三资法”的废除，以公司形式设立的外商投资企业的解散和清算自然需要适用《中华人民共和国公司法》（“《公司法》”）第十章“公司解散和清算”的规定。而事实上，在《外商投资法》实施之前，外资企业在解散、清算方面已经适用了《公司法》的相关规定，只是在操作流程上较内资企业有所不同。

然而《公司法》对于解散清算的规定过于宽泛，而最高院有关企业解散清算的司法解释在实操层面又存在诸多难点和不确定性，导致外国投资者在寻求以解散清算方式撤离时面临重重困境。笔者拟通过本文对于外商投资企业解散和非破产清算一般路径以及可能面对的困难进行简要分析，从而希望对投资者在设立外商投资企业并签订相应股东协议时有所参考和提示。

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.

On 4 September 2020, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan of Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited (Virgin) under the new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA); this is the first time the court has sanctioned a restructuring plan under the new Part 26A.