The issue in this case concerned the failure of a holder of a Qualifying Floating Charge (QFC) to give notice to a prior QFC holder before appointing administrators, therefore potentially calling into question the validity of the administration.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.

The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, including the 2020 annual summary, were published on 29 January, painting a picture of the effectiveness of government measures introduced over the past year to support companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A recent decision of the Court has confirmed that the recipient of funds from an individual who is subject to a bankruptcy petition can be construed as having provided value where that value is given to a third party (and not to the bankrupt personally).

Roger Elford and Jessica Williams in the Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP acted for a successful Respondent, Howard de Walden Estates Limited, in these proceedings.

The Background

After Virgin Atlantic and Pizza Express achieved ‘too much consent’ and did not need cross-class cram down in the end, DeepOcean is the first judgment applying cross-class cram down as part of a restructuring plan.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) – a UK High Court case relating to the administration of a Formula 1 racing team – an unsuccessful bidder for the company's business and assets sued the administrators, arguing that the bid process had been negligently misrepresented and conducted.

The court found that the administrators did not owe a duty of care to the disappointed bidder. It rejected the claimant's criticisms of the company’s sale process and determined that the administrators had conducted it "fairly and properly" and were not, in fact, negligent.

Despite vaccines now being available, tough measures remain in place to deal with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, creating uncertainties for businesses and owners about what the future holds.

Introduction

The United Kingdom formally left the European Union (EU) at 11pm on the 31 January 2020 (Exit Day) and entered into a period of transition. This transition period largely maintained the “status quo” with regards to restructuring and insolvency law and practice, primarily due to the UK having secured ratification of the withdrawal agreement. This made the arrangements between the UK and the EU fully reciprocal post-Exit Day and avoided the no-deal “cliff edge” Brexit, which many had initially feared.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) introduced a series of temporary and permanent measures to the armoury of rescue and restructuring mechanisms in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing financial upheaval.