On 20 May 2020, the UK government announced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”), introducing a mixture of permanent and temporary measures, the latter being in response to the financial challenges companies are facing as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown. In the absence of extensive consultation with insolvency practitioners and industry experts, it remains to be seen how effective the measures will be in practice.

The government has published its response to the consultation on insolvency and corporate governance. The document sets out its proposed next steps; in some areas the government will legislate but in other areas further consultation will be needed.

The proposed insolvency reforms include

• the introduction of a new moratorium to give ultimately viable financially distressed companies a period of time when creditors (including secured creditors) cannot take action against the company, allowing it to make preparations to restructure or seek new investment;

In the recent case of Lau Siu Hung v. Krzystof Marszalek (HCCW 484/2009, 17 June 2013) the Court of First Instance held that an annulment of bankruptcy does not debar a creditor, who has not proved his provable debt, from asserting his claim after the annulment.

Procedural Background

Release provisions

The scope of the powers afforded to the security agent by the so called “release provisions” found in many intercreditor agreements employed in LBO deals has come under scrutiny recently. A number of restructurings have relied upon using the security agent’s powers to implement a restructuring and many others will have at least considered using them.

In its recent consultation (“Managing the failure of systematic Digital Settlement Asset (including stablecoin) firms”), the Government has proposed that one of two special administration regimes (SARs) which currently apply to certain financial institutions (the Financial Market Infrastructure Special Administration Regime (FMI SAR) or the Payment and E-Money Special Administ

As the focus on ESG issues intensifies in the financial markets, we have seen institutional investors demand more in these areas, in terms of both disclosures and concrete targets, from banks and funds. Meanwhile, emerging regulations, and reforms designed to help meet climate change targets and to enhance corporate governance, sustainability and environmental and social responsibility are underway. How will refinancings and restructurings of the significant amount of corporate debt coming out of COVID be affected by such winds of change?

On 20 May 2020, the UK Government published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“CIGB” or the “Bill”) which proposes several changes aimed at improving the chances of company rescue and better overall returns for creditors. One of the proposed changes is to restrict parties’ ability to exercise contractual termination rights where a company enters into an insolvency or restructuring procedure, meaning that for most suppliers and supply contracts a termination clause will be ineffective upon insolvency.

Part of the government’s consultation on insolvency and corporate governance is seeking views on whether more should be done to help protect payments to suppliers, particularly smaller firms, in the specific event of the insolvency of a customer. In seeking views it also wants to understand whether there would be any wider, perhaps unintended consequences, from taking such steps and how they might be managed.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision yesterday on the combined appeals of Nortel GmbH (In Administration) ("Nortel") and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) ("Lehman Brothers") (together, the "Appellants") against the Pensions Regulator ("tPR").

Summary. The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) has issued a statement on regulated apportionment arrangements (RAA) and employer insolvency (the statement).