Pandemic related restrictions on winding up companies come to an end.

Today (16 June 2021) the UK governmentannounced a further extension of some (but not all) of the temporary measures first introduced by the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Act 2020 (CIGA) in June last year.

The two most significant temporary measures for companies facing financial difficulties as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic were:

Over the last 12 months, global markets have been amazingly resilient, indeed even buoyant, aided in large part by governments around Europe and the world providing seemingly unlimited funding and extensive financial stabilisation measures, such as quantitative easing.

This, coupled with protective legislation for companies to prevent insolvency filings and to ensure continued trading – for example, moratoriums, relaxations on insolvency filing obligations and restrictions on creditor actions – has given businesses significant breathing space and prevented widespread failures.

We reported in our previous blog published on 15 June 2020 (“The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill – a pensions perspective”) that a number of pensions concerns had been raised about the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill). As a result, the Bill was subject to significant amendment and debate from a pensions perspective in the House of Lords.

On 15 January 2018, the UK’s second largest contractor filed for compulsory liquidation.

Shortly after, the Insolvency Service reported that there had been 2,668 insolvencies in the construction sector in the twelve months ended Q1 2018—more than any other sector.

Summary

On 24 July 2013, the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Nortel/Lehman case: Re Nortel Companies [2013] UKSC 52. The Court looked at the position where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) was issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings in England (eg administration). How does the relevant obligation rank in the order of priority of payment?

Third parties associated with an employer may find themselves liable to contribute to the employer's occupational pension scheme.

Summary

A recent court decision confirmed that transparent pre-pack sales can be used where they are in the best interests of the creditors as a whole. The court ruled that:

Summary

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the joined cases of Rubin and another v Eurofinance SA and others and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (in liquidation) and another v A E Grant and others [2012] UKSC 46, issued on 24 October 2012, established that judgments avoiding pre-bankruptcy transactions (“avoidance judgments”) made by non-EU foreign courts (including U.S. bankruptcy courts) have no special enforceability status in England and Wales compared to ordinary judgments.

Last week the Court of Appeal of England and Wales handed down its decision in four appeals which raise a number of questions of construction in relation to derivatives in the form of interest rate swaps and forward freight agreements documented under the International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. Master Agreement (the “ISDA Master Agreement”).¹ In particular, the decision focuses on the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.

Key Points