When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

The recent successful appeal in Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another [2016] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) has clarified and highlighted the complexities of bringing a wrongful trading claim and the importance of correctly quantifying losses for which directors can be made personally liable under section 214 and/or 246Z of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”).

A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (“Smile”), a Mauritian company, has recently had its second restructuring plan sanctioned by the High Court in England. The case contains some important markers for those involved in restructuring plans, particularly those plans which involve international elements or which seek to prevent out-of-the-money creditors from voting on the plan.

Background

CVAs are a useful tool in the restructuring tool kit, and may prove extremely helpful to retailers or hospitality companies as a means of supporting those businesses as they emerge from the pandemic. The flexibility of a CVA and the ability to shape the terms of a proposal to meet the specific needs of a business have seen an increasing number of consumer led businesses use CVAs, and they have become popular as a means to restructure businesses that have a significant lease portfolio.

Following the UK Government extending the restrictions on winding up petitions until 30 June 2021 it is useful to note two recent cases that have considered the coronavirus test that currently applies to winding up petitions.

The temporary restrictions that prohibit winding up proceedings where non-payment is COVID-19 related, and restrict petitions based on unsatisfied statutory demands, that would have come to an end on 31 December 2020 have been extended until 31 March 2021.

What are the restrictions?

Statutory demands

Creditors cannot rely upon an unpaid statutory demand as evidence of inability to pay debts in order to issue a winding-up petition against a company, effectively rendering the statutory demand void for that purpose.

On 25 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) received Royal Assent. The Act makes both temporary and permanent changes to the UK insolvency laws.

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”).

This quick guide summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to, and how those duties change when the company is insolvent or at risk of being insolvent. It also provides an overview of the p

This quick guide summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to, and how those duties change when the company is insolvent or at risk of being insolvent. It also provides an overview of the personal risk to directors when the company is in financial difficulty.