The Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics for the period January to March 2021 (Q1 2021) on 30 April 2021. By way of comparison, see our previous update on the Q4 2020 statistics here.
The published statistics for the first quarter of 2021 continue the downward trend seen in the previous 12 month period, with company insolvencies falling overall by 22% from the previous quarter.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that priorities amongst the secured creditors (first charge or second charge) will not prevail in distribution of assets in liquidation, in a case where the creditors had elected for relinquishment of security interest and for distribution of assets according to Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The High Court has had to grapple with the application of witness immunity and the unique examination process under section 236 Insolvency Act 1986. Witness immunity (or immunity from suit) provides that no witness, party, counsel or judge may be liable for words spoken or evidence given in court proceedings; it is an absolute immunity from any civil proceedings based on such conduct.
The High Court has had to grapple with the application of witness immunity and the unique examination process under section 236 Insolvency Act 1986. Witness immunity (or immunity from suit) provides that no witness, party, counsel or judge may be liable for words spoken or evidence given in court proceedings; it is an absolute immunity from any civil proceedings based on such conduct.
On 23 March 2021, the 2011 sale of the One Blackfriars development site in London by administrators was cleared of misfeasance by the High Court, in Re One Blackfriars Ltd [2021] EWHC 684 (Ch).
In a £250 million claim, the company's liquidators had alleged that the former administrators had breached their duties by failing to act independently of the banking syndicate which appointed them, failing to properly assess the value of the site, and selling the site at an undervalue.
Here, we recap the facts of the case and outline the key takeaways to consider.
The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, published on 30 April, show that insolvency rates remain significantly below pre-pandemic levels, demonstrating the continued success of Government measures in preventing a COVID-19 related wave of insolvencies.
The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.
Every five years or so, the insolvency profession seems to try and wrestle with the public outcry about the use of so-called pre-packs. In its simplest terms, this is where “Widget Manufacturing Limited” goes into administration, and the very next day “Widget Manufacturing 2021 Limited” is operating the same business and being owned by the same shareholders. The only crucial difference is that several key liabilities (usually owed to landlords) are left behind in the insolvent business.
The Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, which will come into force on 4 May 2021, will provide individuals with the opportunity to obtain legal protection from creditors in the form of either a breathing space moratorium or a mental health crisis moratorium. Given the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, there may be a significant number of individuals seeking to obtain a moratorium to pause action against them to recover debts.
Protecting debtors
On 23 March 2021, the 2011 sale of the One Blackfriars development site in London by administrators was cleared of misfeasance by the High Court, in Re One Blackfriars Ltd [2021] EWHC 684 (Ch).
In a £250 million claim, the company's liquidators had alleged that the former administrators had breached their duties by failing to act independently of the banking syndicate which appointed them, failing to properly assess the value of the site, and selling the site at an undervalue.
Here, we recap the facts of the case and outline the key takeaways to consider.