Pre-packed administration sales, or pre-packs, remain a useful tool in the tool box for quickly and discreetly achieving a rescue of a business. However, that must always be balanced with the need to protect the veracity of the restructuring process and thereby the interests of creditors. In response to criticism of pre-packs, and a recent review of existing industry measures, the Insolvency Service has proposed draft regulations (the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 makes contract termination more challenging.

Your customer has become insolvent and your typical reaction might be “get me out of here!” Well, maybe not. While most commercial contracts contain the right for one party to terminate in the event of the other party’s insolvency, new legislation makes it more difficult to exercise such rights.

What has changed and why?

Credit bidding is a mechanism, enshrined in the US bankruptcy legislation, whereby a secured creditor can ‘bid’ the amount of its secured debt, as consideration for the purchase of the assets over which it holds security. In effect, it allows the secured creditor to offset the secured debt as payment for the assets and to take ownership of those assets without necessarily having to pay any cash for the purchase. Whilst there is no statutory equivalent in the UK, the process has evolved here into an accepted practice.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) came into force on 26 June 2020. The Act is the most significant shake-up of corporate insolvency law for almost 20 years. With a raft of insolvencies anticipated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Act contains several provisions designed to help viable businesses survive.

This note considers how the recent changes to UK insolvency law introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA") might affect those involved in the sale and purchase of commodities. In particular, it looks at the impact of Section 14 of CIGA on contracts for the supply of goods or services, and on the typical rights and remedies of the seller / supplier under such contracts.

In the United Kingdom, some of the landmark measures introduced by the UK Government in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic have recently been extended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We summarise below key milestones relating to those initiatives which have been put in place to support businesses and note how financial stakeholders are impacted. The package of help for businesses is ever-evolving in response to the changing market, and the key dates identified are correct as at 28 October 2020.

In a move to increase confidence in the insolvency regime, the UK Government has proposed new measures to improve transparency in pre-packaged administration sales where there is a disposal in administration of all or a substantial part of the company’s assets and it is made to a connected party within the first eight weeks of the administration.

Earlier in the year, we published a blog regarding the impact of the moratorium introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. In particular, we flagged that the moratorium may result in a significant loss of control for secured lenders and qualified floating charge holders (QFCH).

The stringent regulations introduced to avoid the spread of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic caused widespread disruption across UK sites. The consequent commercial challenges were too great for some businesses − despite government measures to help those facing financial difficulty. Inevitably, insolvencies followed.

One of the temporary measures that was not extended was the disapplication of the wrongful trading rules of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards the personal liability of company directors. The discontinuation of the temporary protection has been criticised by business and most recently by the Institute of Directors (IoD) which commented that "Failing to extend the suspension of wrongful trading rules was a mistake. Without this protection, the pressure is on directors to simply shut up shop when faced with difficulty". Is that concern justified?