It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.

We discussed the announcement that Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”) was due to be placed into special administration in our previous blog outlining how the rules for energy supply companies work, the supplier of last resort (“SoLR”) regime and what energy supply company special administration entails.

Section 1930(a)(6) of Title 28 requires the payment of quarterly fees to the United States Trustee (the “UST”) for each quarter that a bankruptcy case is open. The amount of fees is calculated based on the amount of disbursements made by the debtor during each quarter. But, are these fees payable when a trust, established by a confirmed plan, makes distributions rather than a debtor?

On Monday, Zacaroli J handed down his eagerly anticipated judgment in Lazari Properties (2) Limited (and others) v New Look Retailers Limited (and others).

The New Look landlords challenged the New Look CVA and raised a number of arguments which some believed could be the end of CVAs as we know them. In particular, the New Look landlords argued that CVAs had gone far beyond the use for which they had been intended and sought to challenge the jurisdictional basis upon which some CVAs are implemented.

The key arguments were that:

There has been a significant increase in the use of CVAs, in particular in the retail and hospitality sector over the last 12 to 24 months, largely impacting landlord creditors. Consequently, there has been an increase in landlords challenging CVAs.

Landlords (and other creditors) may apply to court to challenge a CVA on the grounds of material irregularity or unfair prejudice.

In the third (and final) of our blog series on recent CVA cases, in Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch), the High Court gave permission for misfeasance proceedings to be brought against two former joint administrators. This was despite an approved Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) containing a clause releasing the joint administrators from liability.

In late September 2020, the federal government announced that it would be introducing changes to Australia's Corporations Act (Act) and the most significant amendments to the corporate insolvency regimes in decades. The main objective is to help the small business sector deal with and overcome the economic, financial and trading challenges posed by the ongoing pandemic. Since then, the government has released its new laws via the Corporations Amendment (Corporation Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 (Cth) (New Laws).

The Australian government has taken swift action to enact new legislation that significantly changes the insolvency laws relevant to all business as a result of the ongoing developments related to COVID-1

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) was published on 20 May 2020 and introduced a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill went through the House of Commons on 3 June and passed through the House of Lords on 23 June. The Bill was back before the House of Commons today and is likely to receive Royal Assent next week (at which point the Bill will become law).

The ability of suppliers to terminate contracts when a customer becomes insolvent is to be curtailed by the Government under plans published in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”).