The government restrictions on enforcement options for Lenders have been regularly extended due to the ongoing pandemic. Below is a table of what options are available to Lenders as at 22 March 2021 to enforce their security and recover liabilities owing from their borrowers.

Amplifying JCAM Commercial Real Estate Property XV Ltd v Davis Haulage Ltd [2018] EWCA CIV 276 the court has again considered repeated Notices of Intention to Appoint (NOITA) and the effect on the interim moratorium.

Background

This case involved the Company filing 4 successive NOITAs although only two of them were the subject of these proceedings (NOITA 1 and NOITA 2).

The Company owned a Property which was subject to a legal mortgage and QFC. The secured loan was in default and the Company was seeking to delay enforcement whilst it refinanced.

Following review and proposal by the UK Government to develop stricter scrutiny of pre-pack administration sales to connected parties, the Government laid the draft Regulations in Parliament on 24 February 2021. These are due to come into force on 30 April 2021. Our previous article summarising the Government’s proposal can be found here.

The fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic has seen some well-established and high profile names, particularly on the British high street, enter into UK insolvency processes. Debenhams, Arcadia, Laura Ashley, Oasis, Warehouse and Jaeger are just some of the big names that have collapsed into administration over the past year. Another thing that all of these brands have in common is that they were bought out of administration by investors looking to uncover their underlying value and restore them to their former glory.

A recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reaffirms its position that only in rare cases will it be appropriate to interfere with concurrent findings of fact of two lower tribunals.¹ The Privy Council found Byers and others v Chen Ningning to be one such case on the basis that an error in findings of fact as to the Respondent’s status as a director had been made by the first instance trial judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Introduction

The recent Gategroup decision has put a focus on recognition of UK insolvency tools, as the industry grapples with uncertainties as to EU-wide treatment as an outsider. We consider whether it matters that there may not be any uniform recognition treatment for Restructuring Plans, and whether that offers parties opportunity as well as uncertainty.

1. Overview

A recent decision illustrates the court’s approach to providing non-party access to documents referred to at a public hearing, in the context of a proposed scheme of arrangement: Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 454 (Ch).

On 24 February 2021, the government published new draft Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations), following the consultation process conducted in late 2020. The Regulations are still to be debated by Parliament, but are expected to come into effect on 30 April 2021 with few substantive amendments.

What happens to a company’s intellectual property rights when the company is dissolved?

Sometimes not all loose ends are tied up neatly and companies are dissolved whilst still owning assets. What happens to those assets if they are not bought prior to dissolution can appear mysterious, but even following the dissolution of the company the assets may continue to exist. In this article we discuss the processes that can be used in England and Wales to obtain intellectual property assets from dissolved companies.

Falling into “bona vacantia”

This article summarises the findings of the High Court in Re gategroup Guarantee Limited [2021] EWHC 304 (Ch) (Re gategroup Guarantee Limited) and provides a view of its effects on the cross-border application of the Restructuring Plan (defined below) and the use of co-obligor structures in restructurings.

The Restructuring Plan