On 2 June 2020, Mr Justice Morgan handed down his judgment in the case of Re: A Company [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) in which a High Street retailer (whose identity is not disclosed) applied to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on the provisions of the yet-to-be-enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the “Bill”).

There are essentially three types of insolvency proceeding: liquidation, receivership and administration. Liquidators realise and distribute a company’s assets before dissolving the company. Receivers usually realise certain secured assets to repay certain debts, before appointing a liquidator. However, an administrator’s first objective is to rescue the company as a going concern. It is only if this is not practicable that the administrator can realise and distribute a company’s assets.

The Government published its Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill on 20 May 2020, which will implement the most significant reform to the UK’s insolvency framework in decades. In addition to permanent landmark changes, including introducing a business rescue moratorium and new restructuring plan, the Bill contains a number of temporary measures to help businesses respond to the COVID-19 crisis.

On 16 December 2010, HM Treasury published a revised draft of the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality and Financial Collateral Arrangements) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/2993) (the “Amending Regulations”).  

The High Court has struck down a company voluntary arrangement on the ground that it unfairly prejudiced a landlord who was to lose the benefit of a guarantee given by the tenant’s parent company. The judge said it was “unreasonable and unfair in principle” to require the landlord to give up the guarantee and there was “no sufficient justification” for requiring the landlord to accept a sum of money in lieu.

In a decision widely anticipated by investors in emerging market and distressed debt, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse to grant an indefinite moratorium on claims under certain English law debts under the Cross Border Insolvency Rules (“CBIR”). In doing so, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of English common law that provides important protection to creditors; known as the Rule in Gibbs, the rule provides that a debt may only be discharged according to its own governing law.

The recent decision of the London Commercial Court in PJSC Tatneft v Gennady Bogolyubov & Ors [2018] EWHC 1314 (Comm) highlights the importance that the Court will attach to full asset disclosure by a respondent to ensure the effectiveness of a freezing order, even in circumstances where the value of a respondent’s assets exceeds the sum frozen by the order.

Freezing Orders: What Are They?

In the recent decision in Carlos Sevilleja Garcia v Marex Financial Limited,1 the Court of Appeal helpfully summarised the justifications for the English law rule against claims for reflective loss and confirmed that the rule applies equally to unsecured creditors of a company as it does to shareholders.

Highlights

UK High Court Confirms Broad Definition of a “Financial Institution” – (Re Olympia Securities Commercial Plc (in administration) [2017] EWHC 2807 (Ch))

The High Court has confirmed it will adopt a broad definition of a “financial institution” for the purposes of the transferability provisions in a loan agreement including: (i) a newly incorporated company with a share capital of £1, (ii) an entity that has not traded and (iii) a special purpose vehicle established for the purpose of acquiring debt.

Facts