Last year the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) made both temporary and permanent changes to the UK insolvency laws.
As part of these measures, a provision was inserted into existing legislation which curtails the ability of suppliers to terminate supply contracts when a customer becomes insolvent (the so called `ipso facto regime').
With fairly swift measure the UK House of Commons approved the ‘pre-pack regulations’ confirming that, with effect from 30 April 2021, before a pre-pack sale can complete creditor approval or an independent written report from an evaluator will be required.
The detail about, the now mandatory referral process, can be found in our previous blogs.
Who will the evaluator be?
The case of Arlington Infrastructure Ltd (In Administration) v Woolrych [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch) is a cautionary reminder to qualifying floating charge holders (and their advisors) to review the terms of all security documents, before seeking to appoint an administrator.
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.
On 20 May 2020, the UK Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) to the House of Commons. The Bill introduces 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 is currently only in draft form and therefore amendments may be made. It is anticipated that the legislation will come into force by the end of June 2020.
This blog (the first in a series of blogs about this new measure) outlines the key provisions of the moratorium and how it will work.
The High Court has delivered the first decision on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (the “Scheme”), in the context of the Carluccio’s administration.
As we have previously discussed (HERE), despite further clarification from HMRC over recent days, there remain some unanswered questions regarding the detailed operation of the Scheme, given that the Scheme’s exact legal framework has not been published.
In this blog, we highlight changes to law, practice and procedure that will or could impact the restructuring insolvency market this year – covering important changes that should be on your radar – as well as providing an update on those changes that were expected but which might be delayed beyond 2020.
Brexit – will it be business as usual for R&I practitioners?
This week sees the UK finally leave Europe.
The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.
Paul Muscutt, London restructuring partner at law firm Squire Patton Boggs, talks to Andrew Tate, former R3 President, Chair of R3’s Policy Group and Partner at accountancy firm Kreston Reeves LLP, about conflicts of interest in the restructuring and insolvency profession*.
Administrators are statutorily entitled to require a receiver to vacate office (paragraph 41 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)). In Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd vCraig and another [2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) they did just that, taking steps to remove existing receivers not long after their appointment, claiming the action to be in the interests of all the creditors. On the facts, that decision was not only unreasonable but costs were also awarded personally against the administrators.
Brief facts and arguments