New Insolvency Measures Introduced by the British Government Bring Relief to UK Companies and their Directors


By Chris Iacovides & Andri Antoniou*
Whilst the UK is taking proactive measures to aid ailing companies and businesses from the aftermath of the coronavirus outbreak, one cannot help but wonder what the Cyprus government will do since the Examinership regime introduced as part of the rescue culture in 2015, failed miserably.
The UK may have been slower off the mark than many other countries in their fight against coronavirus nevertheless, the authorities have now ramped up the speed and scale of the measures being implemented to protect their national health system and the economy.
On Friday 27 March 2020, the British Government went to the extent of introducing more flexible insolvency procedures to help businesses.
According to Alok Sharma, UK’s Business Secretary, the following measures will take effect retrospectively from March 1st for 3 months during the coronavirus pandemic.
Under the plans, new restructuring tools will be added to the UK’s Insolvency Framework including:
A moratorium for companies giving them breathing space from creditors enforcing their debts for a period of time whilst they seek rescue or restructuring options;  
Protection of supplies to enable them to continue trading during the moratorium by prohibiting the enforcement of contractual termination clauses;
An innovative restructuring plan, binding dissenting creditors which would have been no worse off in a liquidation scenario.
The proposals will include key safeguards for creditors and suppliers to ensure they are paid while a solution is sought.
A further key development is that the wrongful trading provisions shall be temporarily suspended to give company directors greater confidence to use their best endeavours to continue to trade during this pandemic emergency, without the threat of personal liability should the company ultimately fall into insolvency.
What is wrongful trading?
Wrongful trading or 'trading irresponsibly' is a civil offence and is governed in the UK by section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986. It occurs when company directors continued to trade whilst they knew, or ought to have known that there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation and they failed to take every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company’s creditors. Essentially, directors must be found to have acted reasonably and responsibly in the time preceding a company’s insolvency to avoid wrongful trading proceedings.
If directors are found guilty of wrongful trading, they can be held personally liable for the company’s debts from the point in time they knew or ought to have known the company was insolvent. In some cases, they can also be disqualified from acting as director, fined or even imprisoned.
The wrongful trading provisions are not incorporated within our insolvency framework and under normal circumstances (post the pandemic crisis) the introduction of such an offence may go some way in acting as a deterrent to delinquent directors, nevertheless, section 180 of Cap 113 of the Laws of Cyprus enables the court, on application, to prohibit a person found guilty of any fraud against a company or breach of duty, from taking part in the management of a company.
In today’s financial climate, and the near-total meltdown of our economic system due to the Covid-19 pandemic, business viability depends on access to capital.
The ECB has taken unprecedented measures, making available up to €3 trillion in liquidity at the lowest interest rate ever offered, -0.75%. European banking supervisors have also freed up an estimated €120 billion of extra bank capital, which can support considerable lending capacity for the eurozone banks. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend on our own government’s initiatives and decisions to ensure those companies which need the financial support will ultimately benefit and that they are given the crucial breathing space they will need.
The current uncertainty begs the question whether our technocrats and legislators, will act with sufficient foresight and speed to introduce legislative measures that will provide a mechanism to aid the business community to survive and recover. 
Bitter experience, through the introduction of Examinership, should have taught us that for any urgent rescue mechanism to function and be effective in assisting ailing companies to survive, it must require minimal court involvement, beyond that, principles which could be incorporated should include the ability to compromise debts, prior to insolvency, similar to a Liquidator’s powers, pursuant to the provisions of section 233(1)(e) of Cap 113 and/or Schemes of Arrangements with creditors[1] in accordance with the provisions of section 198 of Cap 113, enabling all creditors to be treated on a pari passu basis[2].
Measures being adopted in the UK could also be emulated in Cyprus, in particular, a moratorium period giving companies and businesses the breathing space they will need during this difficult period, going beyond the suspension of loan repayments and interest! Cyprus’ economy is already highly geared, we need other tools, such as effective restructuring mechanisms to give debtors the lifeline they will need to survive and amendments to our existing legislation, especially foreclosure powers. 
It is abundantly clear that  the Examinership regime forced upon us failed miserably, without a single successful appointment nearly 5 years after its introduction, now, more than ever, businesses will need the right tools, financial aid and support if they are to weather this storm; burdening them with more loans will be the last thing they need. and could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back!
Perhaps the concepts introduced as part of the EU’s Restructuring and Second Chance Directive, adopted in June 2019, with a focus on preventative restructuring frameworks will assist those responsible for enacting it in Cyprus to introduce mechanisms which will actually function within our legal and court system. Our economy deserves a second chance and one can only hope that this time, we will get it right.
*Chris Iacovides is a Certified Public Accountant and a Licensed Insolvency Practitioner, Andri Antoniou is a solicitor, Member of the Law Society of England and Wales and a Licensed Insolvency Practitioner - both Directors of CRI Group www.crigroup.com.cy which specialises in all aspects of corporate and personal insolvency.  

[1] Amendment provisions will need to be incorporated by professionals that possess practical experience;
[2] The compromising of securities must be expressly prohibited in any Scheme of Arrangement, also section 300 of Cap 113, to the extent that it applies to preferential taxes, should be suspended temporarily.      

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

Daily Mail publisher wins case against ‘success fees’ paid to lawyers (ECtHR)

Image
Obligation on publisher of the Daily Mail to pay substantial “success fees" in defamation and breach of privacy cases was excessive. The case Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (application no. 37398/21) concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday had been obliged to pay extensive costs incurred by claimants who had successfully sued it in privacy and/or defamation proceedings following articles it had published in print or online in 2017 and 2019.  Since one of the claimants had entered into a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with his legal representative, and both had taken out “after-the-event” (ATE) insurance, Associated Newspapers Limited had been liable not only for their base costs, but also for fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and for their ATE insurance premiums.  In Chamber judgment (12.11.2024) in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that t...
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

Intellectual property: the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark

Image
In its Judgment in Case T-82/24 (Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine v EUIPO) (RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF) the General Court ruled that the figurative sign consisting of the phrase ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ in Russian and English cannot be registered as an EU trade mark. That phrase, which has become a symbol of Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, is not perceived as an indication of a commercial origin.  The Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine) requests the General Court of the European Union to annul the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 st December 2023, which refused registration of the following figurative sign as an EU trade mark: ‘RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F* *K yourself’ That mark is a war cry uttered by the Ukrainian border guard on Snake Island on 24th February 2022, the first day of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Registration was sou...
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by ...
Read more

European Ombudsman asks Commission to publish details of its handling of senior staff move to law firm

Image
The European Ombudsman has asked the European Commission to publish details about how it has handled the planned move by a former director in its competition department to the Brussels office of a US corporate law firm as a partner. Any restrictions that have been placed on the activities of the former director to mitigate potential conflicts of interest should be made public without delay, said the Ombudsman. She noted that public information about the move came from the law firm and gives the impression that the Commission has allowed a senior official to work for a company that anticipates major benefits from their inside knowledge.  The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission declined to give details about the individual’s professional experience despite the fact that the law firm itself has put out a press release detailing it. The Ombudsman has previously criticised a tendency in the EU administration to underestimate the potential negative effects of staff moves to th...
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whe...
Read more