Insolvency figures for May 2022 were published by the Insolvency Service on 17 June, and reveal an increase in corporate insolvencies both compared to pandemic and pre-pandemic levels.
The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).
Background
In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited (in liquidation) [2022] EWCACiv 626, the Court of Appeal considered a challenge to an assignment of claims by a liquidator.
Government-backed loan schemes implemented to assist ailing businesses during the pandemic have been subject to widespread abuse. An estimated £4.9bn of the £47bn invested in business support loans during the life of the pandemic is thought have been lost to fraud and up to £17bn may never be repaid. In response to concerns about potential abuse of limited company liability, new legislation received Royal Assent on 15 December 2021 - The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the Act).
The recent company insolvency statistics for Q1 2022 show the number of company insolvencies is continuing to increase. The figures show creditors’ voluntary liquidations as being the most common procedure followed by compulsory liquidations – the number of which is more than twice as high as in the previous quarter, although still below pre-pandemic levels.
The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).
Background
In a damning indictment of the government's handling of the bounce back loan scheme, the Times are reporting that up to £17bn of the £47bn spent by the government on bounce back loans will never be paid back. Of the irrecoverable sums, around £4.9bn is suspected to have been lost to fraud.
The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.
A link to the judgment can be found here.
Background
In the recent Court of Appeal case of Re Ipagoo LLP, the court provided welcome clarity on the status of e-money holders’ claims under the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMR). In brief, the Court of Appeal held that the EMR do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders. The court confirmed, however, that e-money holders will still enjoy priority status in respect of their e-money creditor claims (crucially) whether or not their funds have been duly segregated from the general pool of assets, as required under the EMR.
The standalone moratorium has been a seldom used restructuring tool since its introduction under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.