The onset of COVID-19 has precipitated and accelerated substantial change for businesses in fashion retail, adding to particular headwinds already facing the sector in the UK. While many brick-and-mortar fashion retailers were already experiencing challenging trading conditions at the start of 2020 – ranging from rent and rates overheads to increased online competition – restrictions on and changes to consumer preferences resulting from the pandemic have intensified the challenges facing many fashion retailers and businesses operating in the supply chain.

The rapidly changing impact of COVID-19 on companies and the wider economy presents directors with the unenviable task of balancing the immediate need to secure the survival of their company against the longer-term implications for their stakeholders. In March, the UK Government announced that wrongful trading measures would be temporarily suspended to ease this pressure. The suspension measures are included in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which introduces both temporary measures, such as this, and permanent and significant changes to UK insolvency law.

Navigating the road between regulatory compliance and business rescue

When dealing with a goods vehicle operator in an insolvency context:

In a judgment handed down on 17 March 2017 (but which has only recently become publicly available) in Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio,1 Mr Justice Teare held that an After The Event (ATE) insurance policy put before the court in purported satisfaction of a security for costs order, was not in a reasonably satisfactory form.

According to the UK Gift Card & Voucher Association, in 2014 the gift card and voucher market was worth £5.4 billion in the UK and $124 billion in the US. 

Gift cards can confer numerous benefits on the retailer, including promotion, working capital and additional profit from up-spend, and are popular with consumers as a method of paying for goods and services in advance of receiving them. 

Overturning two significant recent decisions, the Court of Appeal has held that whenever a rent payment day falls, from the moment a company in administration beneficially retains property, it will ordinarily be liable to pay rent as an expense for the period of that beneficial retention.

Scottish landlords enjoy a preferential right of security known as “landlord’s hypothec” in respect of any unpaid rent arrears due in the event that their tenants enters administration or liquidation. The landlord's right of hypothec is unique to Scots Law and is not available to landlords in respect of properties south of the border. For reasons we will go on to discuss, the current legal framework on landlord’s hypothec is not particularly well developed and is widely criticised as being unsatisfactory.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 makes the most significant changes to UK insolvency law in a generation. It had a rapid passage through the UK parliamentary process, making its way from first publication on 20 May 2020 to Royal assent on 25 June 2020 in just over five weeks. This article provides a brief overview of the key measures introduced by the Act (both permanent and temporary) and summarises the amendments made to the Act during its progress through parliament. It also provides links to our further, more in-depth, analysis.

While a range of outcomes, including a departure under the terms of the current Withdrawal Agreement, remains possible, it is important for businesses to plan for a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement or other deal. Here we look at the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on cross-border corporate recovery and insolvency.

Key issues

In 2016 the High Court considered the validity of an assignment of a lease by a tenant to its guarantor. The antiavoidance provisions in section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 ("1995 Act") strictly limit the freedom of contract of parties to leases governed by that Act, broadly, those granted after 1995. Agreements which frustrate those provisions are void even if they are commercially justifiable.

BRIEF FACTS AND DECISION

EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited [2016] EWHC 529 (Ch)