Moratorium

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) inserted a new Part A1 into the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which provides for a new insolvency process whereby directors of insolvent companies, or companies that are likely to become unable to pay their debts (ie insolvent) can obtain a moratorium. This period lasts for an initial period of 20 business days, which can be extended. It is designed to allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action. The moratorium is overseen by an insolvency practitioner acting as a ‘monitor’, although the directors will remain in charge of running the business on a day-to-day basis (known as a ‘debtor-in-possession’ process with the company being the ‘debtor’) subject to certain constraints. The intention is to provide a streamlined procedure that keeps administrative burdens to a minimum, makes the process as quick as possible and does not add disproportionate costs on to struggling businesses.

The moratorium is free-standing—it is not be a gateway to a particular insolvency.

Who is eligible to apply?

The company needs to meet the following criteria:

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents