The temporary restrictions on winding-up petitions brought in under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) are wider than originally envisaged when first announced by the government in April 2020 and have now been extended until 31 March 2021.

The restrictions initially related to the period 1 March 2020 – 30 September 2020 (referred to as the ‘relevant period’). On 24 September, it was announced that the relevant period would be extended until 31 December 2020 and it has now been extended again until 31 March 2021.

Brexit’s transition process will pose a number of challenges for businesses. We have created this tracking tool to help our clients manage and avoid issues as new developments take shape. Over the coming months, we will continue updating this tool to include additional information and topics that come to light. By tracking developments and explaining how they impact businesses like yours, we will help you assess your position and determine your priorities as we move to the end of the transition period.

One of the big decisions to come out of 2020 was the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v. Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 in which it was held an insolvent party can adjudicate a dispute.

However, the Supreme Court went on to say that an adjudicator’s decision obtained by an insolvent party may not be enforced because of the insolvency: that was something the Technology and Construction Court has to decide on a case by case basis in enforcement proceedings.

So what happened next?

The facts of this case were somewhat unusual although it serves as a reminder of the principles involved in the trading of a business by a trustee in bankruptcy.

Background

The Irish Government continues to prepare for the consequences of the UK withdrawal from the EU through the enactment of recent legislation.

Introduction

Editor, Jonathan Spearing

Welcome to the ninth edition of Commodities in Focus (CIF); our bulletin for clients engaged in the production, trading, carriage, storage and financing of commodities.

In the third (and final) of our blog series on recent CVA cases, in Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch), the High Court gave permission for misfeasance proceedings to be brought against two former joint administrators. This was despite an approved Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) containing a clause releasing the joint administrators from liability.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problems faced by high-street retailers. Store closures during lockdown, changing consumer behaviour and the resultant loss of turnover and profits have caused many businesses to seek to reduce their rent payments. Company Voluntary Arrangements (“CVAs”) have become fashionable tools for trying to secure such rent reductions.

The United Kingdom’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA) shifted the focus of the United Kingdom’s insolvency regime from administration and liquidation to rescue and recovery and introduced a number of interesting new features that apply to companies experiencing financial difficulties. This article considers how certain of these features fit into the insolvency regime of the Cape Town Convention.1

Increasing pressures placed on those operating in the retail and hospitality sectors as a result of COVID-19, means there is likely to be an increasing use of CVAs in these sectors. The intention would be to help support and restructure businesses in distress, but could retailers use a CVA as a mechanism to re-write the terms of its leases?