‘Lord Justice Coulson’s judgment included the proposition that an insolvent Company could only adjudicate a dispute with a creditor in circumstances of mutual debts in “exceptional circumstances”. Subsequent caselaw has explored the extent of these “exceptional circumstances”.’
3PB, 18th June 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
‘Beyond the medical and physical toll that Covid-19 is taking on sufferers and their families, the economic crisis with lockdown is also expected to lead to a surge in corporate and individual insolvencies. Individuals in particular are likely to be unfamiliar with their options when facing insolvency and with the procedures that aim to balance the twin goals of granting individuals relief from their debt whilst fairly distributing the individual’s assets to creditors.’
Thomas More Chambers, 29th May 2020
Source: www.thomasmore.co.uk
‘In relation to the EFL, there have been dire warnings that in the absence of a substantially increased contribution from the Premier League, up to 60 clubs could go out of business.’
Littleton Chambers, 2nd June 2020
Source: littletonchambers.com
‘In Carillion v KPMG, the liquidators of this once substantial company sought pre-action disclosure from its former auditors. They intend to bring professional negligence proceedings for not detecting that the financial statements were unreliable. The Commercial Court refused the application. One might think that given auditors’ negligence claims in large part turn on professional judgment as to the audit procedures performed, the evidence obtained and the conclusions drawn, clear sight of the materials produced and relied on by the auditors would enable better focussed pleadings. Nonetheless the Commercial Court refused the application (which had admittedly spun into a substantial hearing with apparently more than £500,000 costs on each side). It pointed out that generally such applications were unlikely to succeed in Commercial Court cases and on the facts was not appropriate. The Judge seems to have been most impressed by the fact that Carillion had been able to articulate a detailed case in negligence already, rendering pre-action disclosure perhaps redundant and likely to be duplicated when it came to conventional disclosure.’
Hailsham Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.hailshamchambers.com
‘The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to the economy and to businesses, many of whom are now facing significant financial difficulty. The Government presented the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill to Parliament on 20 May 2020 (“the Bill”). The Bill includes several provisions designed to guard against a deluge of insolvencies during this period and, if enacted, will operate retrospectively.’
3 Hare Court, 2nd June 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘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
‘With many businesses large and small struggling to survive or collapsing into administration or liquidation landlords are particularly vulnerable to rent arrears and the difficulty of finding a suitable tenant to replace the existing. The following is an overview of what steps a landlord can take in this uncertain world.’
Pump Court Chambers, 26th May 2020
Source: www.pumpcourtchambers.com
‘Last week saw the first reading in the House of Commons of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill [“CIGB”], which is the Government’s attempt to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on businesses which should otherwise have been viable. From a parliamentary point of view, it is still at an early stage but, given the importance and urgency of this piece of legislation, it is worth considering some of the key points which arise from a high-level overview, so that you and your clients can try to plan accordingly. Not all of the provisions will survive into the finalised Act, but early Bills are often a good indicator of the overall aims of the legislation. This article does not deal with each and every point to arise from the CIGB, which currently runs to 238 pages including 14 Schedules, but signposts the crucial areas.’
St Philips Barristers, 25th May 2020
Source: st-philips.com
‘The economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are putting incredible pressures on companies of all kinds and sizes. The UK Government has been at pains to signal its support for business during the COVID-19 pandemic, most notably the furloughing scheme and company loans announced by the Chancellor, and further announcements by the Business Secretary seeking to reduce the burden on businesses and keep companies running.’
3 Hare Court, 11th May 2020
Source: www.3harecourt.com
‘In a judgment handed down on 6th May 2020 in Re Debenhams Retail Ltd (in administration) [2020] EWCA Civ 600, the Court of Appeal provided confirmation on the implications for office holders and insolvent estates of using the Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in administrations, following the previous first instance decisions on the issue in Re Carluccio’s Ltd [2020] EWHC 886 (Ch) and Re Debenhams Retail Ltd [2020] EWHC 921 (Ch). Matthew Weaver considers the judgment and its implications in this briefing.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 13th May 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.com
‘A judge has rejected a recusal application on the grounds of apparent bias, based on him being in the same class at school as the director of a defendant company more than 45 years ago.’
Litigation Futures, 13th May 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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
‘Football insolvencies are different than others. In their community impact, yes, but, to some extent at
least, legally as well. They may also be becoming more common.’
3 Hare Court, 4th May 2020
Source: 3harecourt.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
‘On 6 April 2020 the Temporary Insolvency Practice Direction (“TIPD”) came into force. On 7 April 2020 the guidance note issued by Chief ICCJ Briggs confirmed that, for the purposes of TIPD, applications under section 17 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 are deemed urgent.’
Radcliffe Chambers, 17th April 2020
Source: radcliffechambers.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
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024