Last week, in Re a Company (Application to Restrain Advertisement) [2020] EWHC 1551 (Ch) the High Court restrained the advertisement of a winding up petition on grounds of the impending changes to insolvency legislation, which are intended to have a retrospective effect.
As shopping centre owner Intu warns it could be forced to shut many of its sites if it can’t resolve its financial issues by tomorrow, 26/06/2020, our real estate and corporate restructuring and advisory experts take another look at what could happen next.
On top of the multiple challenges hitting retail and leisure landlords and occupiers arising from COVID-19, the news that Intu has had to write down the value of its shopping centre portfolio by nearly £2 billion came as further bad news.
Although the challenges brought by the COVID-19 pandemic have, and continue to, put exceptional pressure on supply chains, the reality is that the insolvency of a business partner is a risk even in normal times. When that business partner is on the other side of pending arbitration proceedings, questions arise as to how the insolvency affects the substantive claim as well as the underlying procedure.
Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch)
Back in November we reported on the case of Wallace v Wallace [2019] EWHC 2503 (Ch), where the Court grappled with the diverging authorities on the issue of whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect.
The issue recently came back before the Court in Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).
What did the Court decide?
As we are nearing the end of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill’s passage through Parliament, it’s time to take a cautionary pause to consider its impact on the supply chain.
Attention has been primarily focussed on this Bill within the context of insolvency and corporate realms. However, those engaged in the supply of goods and services should be mindful of the changes on the horizon.
The High Court has held that s.236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”) does not have extra-territorial effect, so that the court is not generally permitted to make an order requiring a person outside the UK to produce books and papers and give an account of their dealings with an insolvent company: Re Akkurate Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] EWHC 1433 (Ch).
Oliver Hyams and Amy Held investigate the recent case of Islandsbanki Hf & Ors v Stanford [2020] EWCA Civ 480.
Background
At present, global businesses face huge amounts of uncertainty owing to the Covid-19 crisis that is influencing the global economy in an unprecedented manner. From contractual supply chain issues, which have led to the activation of force majeure clauses, among others, to employment issues, insurance disputes, and the real and imminent threat of insolvency of counterparties, businesses need to take quick, effective steps to avoid trouble in these difficult times.
In the recent decision of Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited, the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal in upholding the practicality of adjudication by insolvent companies.
The Supreme Court has handed down its decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale [2020] UKSC 25. It has returned the law to where it was before the first instance judgment and has made a firm statement that there is jurisdiction for insolvent construction companies to refer a dispute to adjudication. In the unanimous decision of the Court, Lord Briggs concluded that the operation of insolvency set off and the adjudication of construction disputes are not only compatible, but they are to be encouraged.