In any economic downturn, there is usually an increase in the number of demands made throughout supply chains and in particular by owners / employers on project securities (e.g. for performance issues, upon termination or following insolvency) and the recent global economic slowdown caused by the coronavirus pandemic is no different.

The UK's withdrawal from the European Union has created uncertainty around insolvency law. Let's look at how things have changed in the wake of Brexit, and what that means for current and future German insolvency proceedings.

What is the state of play post-transition period?

The issue in this case concerned the failure of a holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) to give notice to a prior QFC holder before appointing administrators, therefore potentially calling into question the validity of the administration.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.

The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, including the 2020 annual summary, were published on 29 January, painting a picture of the effectiveness of government measures introduced over the past year to support companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The new National Security and Investment Bill, which aims to provide the Government with the necessary powers to scrutinise and intervene in business transactions to protect national security, will introduce a mandatory notification regime across 17 sectors in the UK economy. Although the Bill provides a carve-out for rights exercisable by administrators, insolvency practitioners will still need to be mindful of the risks that the Bill may have on distressed M&A transactions, which may be rendered void if captured by the regime and the notification requirements not complied with.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

On 29 January 2020, the Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics for October to December 2020 (Q3 2020).

Summary

A recent decision of the Court has confirmed that the recipient of funds from an individual who is subject to a bankruptcy petition can be construed as having provided value where that value is given to a third party (and not to the bankrupt personally).

Roger Elford and Jessica Williams in the Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP acted for a successful Respondent, Howard de Walden Estates Limited, in these proceedings.

The Background