On 7 February 2019, my article entitled “No deal Brexit – impact on insolvency” was published on Lexology. That article was published shortly after the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the “2019 Regulations”) were made.

When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.

The proposal to reinstate Crown preference in insolvency has met resistance from all angles; the insolvency profession, turnaround experts, accountants, lawyers and funders. But despite HMRC’s bold statement in its consultation paper that the re-introduction of Crown preference will have little impact on funders, it is clear following a discussion with lenders that it may well have a far wider impact on existing and new business, business rescue and the economy in general than HMRC believes.

British Steel has entered compulsory liquidation today with EY being appointed as special managers. Is British Steel the first real victim of Brexit? First, as a result of the delay in the UK’s divorce deal, the EU delayed granting carbon credits to British Steel necessitating a £120m loan from the government to stave off significant penalties in relation to its emissions targets.

The United Kingdom ("UK") has established itself as a leading restructuring destination in Europe.

Under the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement, following an event of default, there is either an automatic termination or the non-defaulting party can serve a notice designating an Early Termination Date. There then has to be a determination by the non-defaulting party of the compensation that is owed by one party or the other. This is done by closing out the transactions, which involves determining gains or losses in replacing or providing the economic equivalent of the terminated transactions. Once that is done, a statement is served setting out the calculations.

Article 55 of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) (2014/59/EU) requires Member States to ensure that a bail-in clause is included in agreements containing liabilities of a regulated Member State financial institution which are governed by the law of a third country.

Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.

Brexit insolvency issues for trustees of pension schemes with overseas sponsors

You might remember that before 2016, in the world before the EU referendum (which did exist!), it was effectively not possible for the insolvency of an overseas sponsor of a UK pension scheme to trigger entry into the PPF unless the overseas sponsor had a branch or office (an “establishment”) in the UK (for legal geeks you might remember this was the issue discussed in the Olympic Airlines case which was heard by the Supreme Court in 2015).

Receivables financiers, lenders taking security assignments over contractual rights, participants in the secondary loan market and others have an interest in: