‘This article intends to investigate probably well-rehearsed principles implied in bringing actions for personal injury against long-since defunct and even dissolved companies.’
Parklane Plowden Chambers, 10th June 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘This summary gives a short overview of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which was first read in the House of Commons
on 20 May 2020 and is intended to proceed to the House of Lords following its final stages in the House of Commons on 3 June 2020. This Bill represents the biggest reforms to the UK’s insolvency framework since the Enterprise Act in 2002. The aim is to allow more tools to rescue struggling companies as a going concern and help more businesses weather the COVID-19 storm and avoid entering an insolvency process.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 26th May 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘In the first of what is planned to be five updates on collective consultation under the shadow of the coronavirus pandemic, David Reade QC and Daniel Northall examine the employer’s proposal for redundancy and the start of collective consultation.’
Littleton Chambers, 11th May 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
On 21 April 2020, Zacaroli J allowed an appeal brought against the decision of HHJ Saunders in Homes of England v Nick Sellman (Holdings) Limited. The case concerned Bromham Road Development LLP (BRD), a limited liability partnership which owned the freehold of a property situated at 51 Bromham Road, Bedford (the property). Homes of England (HoE) and Nick Sellman (Holdings) Limited (Holdings) are each 50% partners in BRD. HoE alleged that Holdings, in breach of duties of honesty and good faith owed to HoE, and in breach of a duty to act in the best interests of BRD, delayed in executing documentation required to refinance the property. HoE alleged that this delay increased the amount required to redeem BRD’s original loan from Wellesley Finance plc by £206,933.21.
Hardwicke Chambers, 1st May 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘Countries around the globe have been grappling with the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic. Amongst many issues the crisis has thrown up is the issue of how to deal with companies which suffer from solvency issues as a result of the pandemic, or government measures taken in response to the pandemic. The response of different jurisdictions has varied, as has the speed of the response. This article looks at the UK’s likely response and how it compares to other jurisdictions.’
3 Hare Court, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘This article is the second in a series from Hailsham Chambers addressing insurance implications from the current Covid-19 situation. It explores various causation, mitigation and quantum issues that are likely to arise in that litigation.’
Hailsham Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The rules of the government’s job retention scheme are complex. We put your questions to an employment specialist to cut through the confusion.’
The Guardian, 3rd May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Britain’s financial watchdog is urgently seeking clarity from the courts over the insurance rights of companies whose business has been disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic.’
The Guardian, 1st May 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Insolvency administrators often like to compare their salvage missions to the activity of fungi in recycling dying matter. Administrators, like fungi, earn a living by grappling with the products of decay, taking apart dying businesses and, where possible, identifying, reconstituting and revivifying the most promising bits.’
Thomas More Chambers, 20th April 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘It is a sign of the times that there have been two urgent applications to the High Court of Justice for directions by administrators in respect of furlough arrangements in the course of one week. Each application has concerned high profile companies employing vast numbers of people. The financial implications of the issues before the court in each case are significant for both employees and administrators.’
Exchange Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.exchangechambers.co.uk
‘Given the scale of the damage to the UK economy which the pandemic continues to cause, it is unsurprising that a large number of claims has already arisen. We can expect considerable litigation, not least because individual claims will turn on their particular facts and the precise policy wording employed. Further, the problems associated with these claims place a spotlight on the potential liability of brokers. Nonetheless, certain general points and themes can be discussed at a high level.’
Hailsham Chambers, April 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘On the eve [19 April] of the Scheme going live, David Reade QC and Daniel Northall examine the uncertainties that persist.’
Littleton Chambers, 19th April 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘In a judgment dated 17th April 2020 in Re Debenhams Retail Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 921 (Ch), Trower J determined an application for directions by the joint administrators of Debenhams which concerned the impact of the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in administrations and the recent decision of Snowden J in Re Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch). Matthew Weaver considers Trower J’s judgment and its implications in this briefing.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 21st April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘It should be noted from the outset that Snowden J’s judgment in Re Carluccio’s is not binding. There were no representative employees or interested parties during the remote video hearing so the judgment does not bind the employees or the government.’
Pump Court Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘A lot of attention has focused recently on how to get out of contracts by relying on frustration or force majeure. In the near future, there will be a reckoning of who has behaved well and who has behaved badly, irrespective of their legal rights. In this article, we look at ways in which our less cynical clients can do their commercial counterparties a favour, to help them get through the short term, without running the risk of losing their legal rights in the long term. While our clients might well want to help out the people with whom they do business, they would not want to lose out if they had to prove in a subsequent insolvency.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 22nd April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘On the 28 March 2020, the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy announced a series of insolvency legislation reforms including a new court based restructing tool modelled on the Scheme of Arrangement and a short business moratorium to protect companies facing the prospect of insolvency as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.’
3 Hare Court, 20th April 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘In a judgment handed down on Monday 13th April 2020 in Re Carluccio’s Limited (in administration) [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch), Snowden J considered the application of the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in administrations both as a matter of principle and in respect of the logistics and practicalities involved for office holders. Matthew Weaver considers the judgment and its implications in this briefing.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 16th April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘Coronavirus has affected both the functioning of businesses and the Courts. In these unprecedented times, how are the Courts dealing with the hearings of winding up petitions?’
3 Hare Court, 14th April 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘Your world appeared to be collapsing. You had a good core business, but because of cash flow difficulties, you could not pay your debts as and when they fell due. You were then saved – or, at least, you thought you were- by a trading company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”), under which you are required to make regular monthly contributions of a certain amount. You thought that you would survive with the protection of your CVA – that is until Covid-19 struck. Now, as a non-essential business, you have been forced to close, albeit temporarily, by The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (“the 2020 Regulations”). Alternatively, you are allowed to stay open, but because of Government Guidance about social distancing, you have had to reduce your workforce, or your workforce is much reduced because of sickness or self-isolation. Alternatively, for commercial, health and safety or other reasons, you have decided temporarily to close your business. All of this has stopped or reduced your turnover and as a result you are unable to meet the payment requirements of your CVA. Is it open, in these circumstances, for anyone to argue that the restrictions imposed on your business and your consequent failure to comply with your CVA have frustrated your CVA?’
Radcliffe Chambers, 15th April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘While debate rumbles on over the extension of ‘failure to prevent’ offences into the broad spectrum of financial crime, including fraud and money laundering, some have called for their introduction into an altogether different sphere: human rights.’
Law Society's Gazette, 6th April 2020
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2023