UNIVERSITY NAME

By

Student Name

THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT (‘ACT’)

Course title

Lecturers Name

Name of Place

Due Date (Day/Month/Year)

THE CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT (‘ACT’)

INTRODUCTION

Corporate insolvency refers to a situation in which businesses are unable to meet their liabilities as they fall due¹. Other scholars have defined corporate insolvency as a situation in which a company’s assets are inadequate to cover for its liabilities^1,2. Covid 19 has appeared in history books as one of the greatest pandemics ever experienced. In 2020, Covid 19 hit the country hard forcing the government to call for a lockdown. During this time, the economy experienced an immense contraction that forced many companies to record lower revenues and sales³. During this time, most of the companies’ liabilities surpassed their assets and thereby necessitating a review of the corporate insolvency act. In this report, we are going to focus on the various causes for the legislation of the CIGA alongside a critical review of the aftermath of the legislation of the act.

BACKGROUND

The Corporate Insolvency Governance Act (CIGA) was enforced on 26^th June 2020 after a speedy progression through the parliament since the draft legislation had been presented on May⁴. The bill was in response to the Covid 19 pandemic which had immensely interrupted businesses. The bill’s main agenda was to transform the English restructuring and insolvency law from being ‘creditor friendly’ to ‘debtor friendly’. The amendments made in 2020 were to remedy the shortcomings of the prior Insolvency Act of 1986 and the Companies Act of 2006.

Insolvency Act 1986

According to the insolvency act, in cases where a company meets the definition of insolvency, the company shall be liquidated and the proceeds paid off to the stakeholders based on priority. The system provided the greatest priority to commercial banks or any other parties that offered credit for a security interest⁵. The insolvency act was greatly criticized by many scholars as being creditor-friendly. Liquidation of a company was perceived as a last result where all other efforts to save a company from debt are not possible. The law was also referred to as ‘anti-deprivation’ rule since it ensured that lenders got their money back. The 1986 act stipulates the priority for paying off the company’s assets in the case of liquidation.

1. Fixed charge creditors;

2. Expenses incurred during the process of insolvency;

3. Preferential creditors;

4. Floating charge creditors⁵;

5. Unsecured liabilities that are provable;

6. Statutory interest⁶;

7. non-provable liabilities; and

8. Shareholders.

Companies Act 2006

The company’s act of 2006 goes alongside the insolvency act. The company’s act of 2006 emphasized that a company should be treated as a separate legal entity separating ownership and the limited liability company. Manager can however be sued or disqualified for a breach of duty, including careless trading in a firm where insolvency could not be prevented⁷. Under the 2006 company’s act of 2006, in case of liquidation, the office holder will investigate the actions o the directors to the time the company was liquidated⁸. The director can be held personally liable in a situation where misfeasance has occurred. Misfeasance is the breach of fiduciary duty or misappropriation of resources during one’s tenure. Some of the examples of misfeasance under the 2006 company’s act are;

1. Preferential payments to creditors,

2. Concealing assets,

3. Undervaluing assets,

4. High exorbitant salaries⁹,

5. Wrongful trading, and

6. Fraudulent trading.

RATIONALE FOR LEGISLATION

Once the Covid 19 pandemic hit, most of the businesses were affected and it was crucial to the introduction of a more debtor-friendly measure to safeguard most companies as the country stared at an economic crisis³. With the economic crisis in sight, there was a need to enforce measures that would effectively address the shortcomings of the prior insolvency laws. First, it was crucial to reduce the number of companies entering into insolvency by structuring and reviewing the prior insolvency act. Secondly, it was crucial to mitigate the effects of insolvency on the responsibilities of directors whose businesses were now struggling with the pandemic.

The legislation of the CIGA had the following main purposes;

1. Implementing insolvency and restructuring strategies with new corporate restructuring tools to provide businesses with space and tools to optimize their chances of surviving¹⁰.

2. Suspend parts of the insolvency law temporarily to support directors to continue their business against the crisis without risking personal liability for wrongful trading or protecting businesses against creditor action¹⁰.

3. Amend the laws on companies and other legislation to grant temporary facility on companies and other bodies to company filing and annual meetings

LEGISLATION OF THE CIGA 2020

On 26^th June 2020, the legislature passed the CIGA after a speedy progression since the bill was first introduced on May¹¹. CIGA is an act by the United Kingdom Parliament on financially challenged firms and other entities, making temporary amendments to legislation on the governance and regulation of corporations and other entities¹². This act was in response to the Covid 19 pandemic effects that had seen the country fall into an economic crisis. During this time, numerous businesses were struggling and faced the risk of being liquidated as per the 1986 insolvency act. The bill sought to shift the insolvency act from having been creditor friendly to a new insolvency act that would be more rational and friendly to the debtors (debtor-friendly). The structuring procedures played a crucial role in enabling directors to restructure their businesses more effectively and thereby overcome the negative effects emanating from the pandemic. The bill was further amended on 29^th September 2020, and December 2020 to extend certain periods. These time extensions were for presenting various Companies House documents, including company accounts, to relieve the current load for businesses and to reduce certain obligations connected to meetings of shareholders¹³.

MAIN PROVISIONS

To caution businesses from the effects of the Covid 19, pandemic, the bill constituted of several provisions both temporary and permanent aimed at addressing the issue of insolvency and at the same time increase director’s flexibility in restructuring businesses to deal with the economic crisis.

Temporary Provisions

1. Statutory demands and winding-up petitions.

According to section 10 and 11 of the provision, a lender cannot submit a winding-up petition from 27^th April 2020 to 30^th June 2021¹⁴, unless there is sufficient basis to assume either that coronavirus had no financial effect on the debtor firm or that the company could not pay its debt irrespective of the coronavirus financial impact¹⁵. Similarly, a ban on the statutory requests that were served for the presentation of a closing request on or after 27 April 2020 between 1 March 2020 and 30 June 2021 is being implemented.

The law amends existing insolvency law to preclude the disposition of the debtor company’s property by the petition made during the time under review. The Court can order a retroactive reinstatement of the former status when a winding-up petition is filed between 27^th April 2020 and the temporary provisions come into force. In case of a winding-up order within that time and view of the temporary provisions, the order would not have been issued by the Court, the winding-up order is void.

2. Wrongful trading

Section 12 and 13 of the CIGA temporarily suspended the wrongful trading of company directors by assuming that directors are not personally liable for the worsening economic conditions during the pandemic¹⁶.

The Act provides for a temporary suspension of unlawful trade regulations for many organizations, avoiding a possible possibility of personal liabilities in the coronavirus pandemic for managers. The Act provides for the Court to accept that the Manager is not responsible for any worsening of the financial position of a company or of its creditors from 1 March 2020 to 30 September 2020 and between 26 November 2020 and 30 June 2021 in consideration of a contribution which a director must make to the company’s assets¹⁷.

While this means that directors do not have to contribute, it is not obvious whether there are occasions where the court can mandate infringement contributions. Concerns raised in the debates in the House of Lords suggest that it is the desire of the government not to have these scenarios. Fraudulent trade and disqualification schemes for managers and general managers are still applicable. Managers should remain responsible and reasonable for safeguarding value and minimizing loss.

3. Meetings and company filings

The provisions of Section 37 and Schedule 14 relaxed rules on companies’ requirements to have meetings during a pandemic under the lock-down and social distancing precautions. The regulations govern the electronic holding of shareholder meetings and voting at such meetings.

Extensions to the time limits for reporting and the filing of deadlines by the company house are covered by the law and supplementary legislation¹⁸. Given the government’s constraints on the pandemic, several provisions are contained in the act to facilitate meetings for public and private enterprises.

However, for submissions filed after 5^th April 2021, the automatic extensions authorized under the Act ceases and the normal deadlines are reapplied. Those with interest in mortgage charges created up to April 4^th, 2021 will continue to be automatically extended by ten more days to file the charges¹⁹. According to CIGA, there shall be no automatic extension to mortgage charges established after four April 2021, and those showing any interest in it shall be charged within the regular time frame of 21 days by charges.

Permanent Provisions

The permanent changes in the insolvency act were meant to bring a long-lasting effect and remedy to the financial sector and at the same time act as a remedy to corporates who were already in financial distress. The following are some of the permanent provisions created by the insolvency act 2020;

1. Moratoriums

Section 1-6 under the schedules 1-8 provides moratoriums amendments made on the insolvency act of 1986²⁰. The moratorium would allow businesses that have been deemed as insolvent from obtaining a 20-business day period in which they could seek to invest without creditor action or restructure without creditor actions. The moratorium will be available in the following circumstances;

• When a company is likely to be unable to pay its debts, and

• The moratorium will result in the rescue of the company as a going concern.

With exception of certain financial services, all companies are subject to a moratorium in case they risk insolvency. Any company risking insolvency will be offered a moratorium of 20 business days when it could restructure and avoid insolvency. The moratorium authorities could also extend this period to a maximum of 1 year²¹. When the moratorium is effective, no legal insolvency proceedings can be conducted on the directors. During the moratoria period;

• The day-to-day running of the business remains with the directors but under close supervising of an insolvency practitioner. The practitioner is responsible for authorizing certain transactions and overall oversight of the company.

• Creditors will not be in a position to take legal enforcement actions against a debtor company.

• Landlords cannot exercise forfeiture rules.

However, the company in debt must continue to pay off some of its liabilities including, suppliers, rents, wages, and salaries. Failure to pay off such liabilities could lead to the abrupt termination of the moratoria period. Certain debts incurred during the moratorium period are given priority in an insolvency process that occurs after 12 weeks of the moratorium.

2. Restructuring plans

Section 7 and Schedule 9 amend the Company’s Act 2006²². Under the new restructuring plan, the court acts as the supervisory entity largely modeled on arranged schemes but with additional cross-class cram-down. The restructuring plan is more effective and companies can use it whether or not they are in a moratorium²³.

A company that risks insolvency that could affect its future as a going concern could apply to use the restructuring model to overcome the financial difficulties. Dissenting creditors, suppliers, and other stakeholders may bound by the restructuring process if;

1. At least 1 class of creditors who would either receive a payment or has a genuine economic interest vote in favor.

2. Dissenting creditors wouldn’t be any worse off under the plan based on the court’s determination of what would be the outcome in case the company failed to proceed with the plan²⁴.

3. In cases where the court is prepared to sanction the scheme.

In the new process, valuation will be fundamental in assessing comparison for creditors being crammed down as part of the plan and also assessing creditors that aren’t financially sound to exclude them from the voting process.

3. Termination clauses in supply contracts

The subject matter of ongoing supply shall also be prohibited for providers to demand on payments of amounts that are due before insolvency. The temporary exclusion was set to expire on 30 March 2021 for specific small suppliers, however, it was extended until 30 June 2021²⁵.

The following criterion was used to determine small suppliers;

1. Not more than 10.2 million pounds of turnover;

2. Not more than 5.1 million pounds in the balance sheets²⁶, and

3. Not more than 50 workers.

Some financial firms are permanently excluded. Financial contracts are excluded which implies that, after the insolvency of the borrower, lenders will be allowed to reverse and exercise other rights.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CIGA

With Covid 19 pandemic continuing to create havoc worldwide, there has been a huge effect on most businesses. Businesses have continued to record poor performance and with a significant number risking insolvency. The CIGA has come a long way to remedy the adverse effects of the pandemic. The 2020 Act has proposed both temporary and permanent techniques to remedy the prior defects of the 1986 Insolvency Act and the Company Act of 2006²⁷. The temporary measures will be aggressive in shielding directors from aggressive actions by the creditors. The temporary measures will give the companies a period to restructure their operations and also invent strategies that will enable them to deal with the tough economic conditions. In the long run, the creditors will still require to recover those sums from the company.

To offer additional relief to the already ailing businesses, the CIGA proposes more permanent directives. These measures will be crucial in offering additional relief to businesses and at the same time enable companies to have an opportunity to enforce measures to enable them to avoid insolvency. Moratorium and restructuring are among the more debtor-friendly measures that have played a key role in helping businesses deal with adverse economic situations.

Businesses have for the last year continued enjoying the benefits of these measures and this has greatly helped in reducing the number of insolvency cases as would have previously been expected with the previous 1986 insolvency law.

OPINION

I believe that the CIGA of 2020 has greatly played an immense role in aiding businesses to deal with the economic crisis brought about by the Covid 19 pandemic. Both temporary and permanent strategies have immensely contributed to creating additional relief and thereby helped businesses deal with the tough economic times. I strongly believe that the permanent changes made will go a long way in transforming most companies and reducing cases of corporate insolvency.

The permanent changes are likely to help the government achieve its objectives. However, the shifting of the insolvency act from being creditor friendly to debtor-friendly may immensely affect commercial banks and other lenders in the future. Losses could also increasingly occur in cases where a company uses remaining assets to indiscriminately invest during the moratorium process and still faces insolvency.

EFFECT OF PERMANENT CHANGES ON FUTURE LENDING MARKET

With the introduction of the new CIGA insolvency measures, the lending market stands to be the greatest loser²⁸. The extension of credit periods without legal consequences immensely affected commercial banks and other lenders. The permanent changes propose a set of measures that are debtor-friendly and give directors a real fighting chance outside the insolvency process and at the same time remaining control of the company. Whilst this move is favorable to the debtors, creditors stand to lose since they will have to wait longer to receive their funds. In addition, lenders could lose a significant amount of funds in cases where the company continues to accumulate liabilities during the moratorium or restructuring process.

In conclusion, the CIGA has gone a long way in helping companies deal with the looming Covid 19 pandemic effects. The insolvency came to effect in June 2020 after having gone through a speedy process. This law was enforced based on the economic crisis emanating from the effects of the global Covid 19 pandemic. The 2020 act acted as a remedy to the insolvency act of 1986 and the Corporate Law of 2006²⁹. The amendment consisted of both permanent and temporary proposals that would go side by side in helping the company deal with the contractionary phase of businesses. The CIGA was strategically designed to move the law of insolvency from being ‘creditor friendly’ as per previous regimes to a more ‘debtor friendly’ approach. This approach offered managers an opportunity to restructure their operations in situations they risk insolvency without having to experience massive legal intervention from creditors. It also proposed a set of measures that would not only help businesses deal with insolvency but also allow directors to avoid legal consequences in situations where they are not at fault. It is evident that the CIGA provides useful additions to the restructuring toolkit and offers relief to distressed businesses. It however remains to be seen how these new amendments will affect businesses and especially lenders in the future and post the Covid 19 pandemic.

References

Bär AL. Recent Developments in South African Consumer Insolvency Law-An analysis of the National Credit Amendment Act 7 of 2019 and its possible impact on the economy, taking into account the experiences of the British, New Zealand, and German legal systems (Master’s thesis, Faculty of Law).

Butturini P, ‘Written Resolutions In UK Companies Act 2006 And Their Possible Relevance Beyond UK Borders’ (2020) 17 European Company and Financial Law Review

Closet F and others, ‘Corporate Restructuring And Creditor Power: Evidence From European Insolvency Law Reforms’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal

Cumming D, ‘Commentary: ‘Bankruptcy Laws And Entrepreneur Friendliness’ And ‘How Do Bankruptcy Laws Affect Entrepreneurship Development Around The World?’’ [2010] SSRN Electronic Journal

Dörr J, Murmann S, and Licht G, ‘The COVID-19 Insolvency Gap: First-Round Effects Of Policy Responses On SMEs [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal

Eu A, ‘Valuation Issues In The UK Restructuring Plan’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal

Evans R, ‘Insolvency Law’ (2020) 1 Yearbook of South African Law

Frisby S, ‘Corporate Insolvency Law: Theory And Application. By Rizwaan Jameel Mokal. [Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. Xix, 339 And (Bibliography And Index) 19 Pp. Hardback £70.00. ISBN 0–19–926487–2.]’ (2006) 65 The Cambridge Law Journal

Gallagher A, Smyth T, Primoff MG. Is the New UK Restructuring Plan a Viable Alternative to Chapter 11?. American Bankruptcy Institute Journal. 2020 Sep 1;39(9):24-69.

García-Posada M, ‘Analysis Of Insolvency Proceedings In Spain Against The Backdrop Of The Covid-19 Crisis: Insolvency Proceedings, Pre-Insolvency Arrangements And The Insolvency Moratorium’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal

Gant J, ‘Executory Contracts In Insolvency Law: A Global Guide, Jasonchuah And Eugeniovaccari (Eds) (2019, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) 736 Pp., £195, ISBN 978‐1‐78811‐551‐3’ (2020) 29 International Insolvency Review

Garvin J, Charlton D. The United Kingdom Protection for Businesses in Debt during the COVID-19 Pandemic and beyond. Com. L. World. [2020].

Gurrea-Martínez A, ‘Insolvency Law In Times Of COVID-19’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal

Jain Y, Doshi H. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Framework and Principle of Business Efficacy across Different Jurisdictions in the COVID Era. Business Law Review. [2021]

Lynch Fannon I, ‘Comparative Corporate Law Theory and Harmonization Of EU Insolvency Law: Understanding The Impact Of Path Dependency.’ [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal

Madaus S, and Boon G, ‘Guest Editorial: Building COVID ‐19 Resilient Insolvency Frameworks’ (2020) 29 International Insolvency Review

Memorandum LA. Companies etc.(Filing Requirements)(Temporary Modifications).

Omar P, ‘Goode On Principles Of Corporate Insolvency Lawkristinvanzwieten, 5Th Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2018. Cvi And 967 Pp. + Appendices And Index, £259, ISBN 978‐0‐414‐03488‐8’ (2019) 28 International Insolvency Review

Shashkova A, ‘Questioning State Corporations As Special Forms Of Legal Entities’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal

Thekkethil L, ‘Revival Of Corporates Under Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code 2016’ [2018] SSRN Electronic Journal

Vaccari E, ‘Creditor Treatment In Corporate Insolvency Lawkayodeakintola (1St Edition) (2020, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) 256 Pp., GBP 125, ISBN 978‐1‐78897‐138‐6’ [2021] International Insolvency Review

van Zwieten K, ‘Disciplining The Directors Of Insolvent Companies: An Essay In Honour Of Gabriel Moss QC’ [2019] SSRN Electronic Journal

Vaccari E, ‘Creditor Treatment In Corporate Insolvency Lawkayodeakintola (1St Edition) (2020, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) 256 Pp., GBP 125, ISBN 978‐1‐78897‐138‐6’ [2021] International Insolvency Review

Vaccari, Eugenio. Changes to UK Insolvency Rules in the Wake of Covid-19: A Much-Needed Help for Businesses or an Unjustified Harm to the Rule of Law?. (2020).

Webb D, ‘An Economic Evaluation of Insolvency Procedures In The United Kingdom: Does The 1986 Insolvency Act Satisfy The Creditors’ Bargain?’ (1991) 43 Oxford Economic Papers

Weisbord R, ‘Charitable Insolvency And Corporate Governance In Bankruptcy Reorganization’ [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal

Wheelock D, ‘Comparing The COVID-19 Recession With The Great Depression (2020) 2020 Economic Synopses

---

1. Paul Omar, ‘Goode On Principles Of Corporate Insolvency Lawkristinvanzwieten, 5Th Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2018. Cv And 967 Pp. + Appendices And Index, £259, ISBN 978‐0‐414‐03488‐8’ (2019) 28 International Insolvency Review.↩︎

2. Sandra Frisby, ‘Corporate Insolvency Law: Theory And Application. By Rizwaan Jameel Mokal. [Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. Xix, 339 And (Bibliography And Index) 19 Pp. Hardback £70.00. ISBN 0–19–926487–2.]’ (2006) 65 The Cambridge Law Journal.↩︎

3. David C. Wheelock, ‘Comparing The COVID-19 Recession With The Great Depression (2020) 2020 Economic Synopses.↩︎

4. Frédéric Closet and others, ‘Corporate Restructuring And Creditor Power: Evidence From European Insolvency Law Reforms’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

5. DAVID C. WEBB, ‘AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF INSOLVENCY PROCEDURES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM: DOES THE 1986 INSOLVENCY ACT SATISFY THE CREDITORS’ BARGAIN?’ (1991) 43 Oxford Economic Papers.↩︎

6. Eugenio Vaccari, ‘Creditor Treatment In Corporate Insolvency Lawkayodeakintola (1St Edition) (2020, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) 256 Pp., GBP 125, ISBN 978‐1‐78897‐138‐6’ [2021] International Insolvency Review.↩︎

7. Paolo Butturini, ‘Written Resolutions In UK Companies Act 2006 And Their Possible Relevance Beyond UK Borders’ (2020) 17 European Company and Financial Law Review.↩︎

8. Kristin van Zwieten, ‘Disciplining The Directors Of Insolvent Companies: An Essay In Honour Of Gabriel Moss QC’ [2019] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

9. Lesley Thekkethil, ‘Revival Of Corporates Under Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code 2016’ [2018] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

10. Julian Oliver Dörr, Simona Murmann, and Georg Licht, ‘The COVID-19 Insolvency Gap: First-Round Effects Of Policy Responses On SMEs [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

11. Reid K. Weisbord, ‘Charitable Insolvency And Corporate Governance In Bankruptcy Reorganization’ [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

12. Anna Shashkova, ‘Questioning State Corporations As Special Forms Of Legal Entities’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

13. Irene Lynch Fannon, ‘Comparative Corporate Law Theory And Harmonisation Of EU Insolvency Law: Understanding The Impact Of Path Dependency.’ [2014] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

14. Garvin J, Charlton D. The United Kingdom Protection for Businesses in Debt during the COVID-19 Pandemic and beyond. Com. L. World. [2020].↩︎

15. Douglas J. Cumming, ‘Commentary: ‘Bankruptcy Laws And Entrepreneur Friendliness’ And ‘How Do Bankruptcy Laws Affect Entrepreneurship Development Around The World?’’ [2010] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

16. Vaccari, Eugenio. “Changes to UK Insolvency Rules in the Wake of Covid-19: A Much-Needed Help for Businesses or an Unjustified Harm to the Rule of Law?.” [2020]↩︎

17. Miguel García-Posada, ‘Analysis Of Insolvency Proceedings In Spain Against The Backdrop Of The Covid-19 Crisis: Insolvency Proceedings, Pre-Insolvency Arrangements, And The Insolvency Moratorium’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

18. Aurelio Gurrea-Martínez, ‘Insolvency Law In Times Of COVID-19’ [2020] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

19. Garvin J, Charlton D. The United Kingdom Protection for Businesses in Debt during the COVID-19 Pandemic and beyond. Com. L. World. [2020]↩︎

20. Stephan Madaus and Gert‐Jan Boon, ‘Guest Editorial: Building COVID ‐19 Resilient Insolvency Frameworks’ (2020) 29 International Insolvency Review.↩︎

21. Memorandum LA. Companies etc.(Filing Requirements)(Temporary Modifications).↩︎

22. Eugenio Vaccari, ‘Creditor Treatment In Corporate Insolvency Lawkayodeakintola (1St Edition) (2020, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) 256 Pp., GBP 125, ISBN 978‐1‐78897‐138‐6’ [2021] International Insolvency Review.↩︎

23. Gallagher A, Smyth T, Primoff MG. Is the New UK Restructuring Plan a Viable Alternative to Chapter 11?. American Bankruptcy Institute Journal. [2020]↩︎

24. Jennifer Gant, ‘Executory Contracts In Insolvency Law: A Global Guide, Jasonchuah And Eugeniovaccari (Eds) (2019, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham) 736 Pp., £195, ISBN 978‐1‐78811‐551‐3’ (2020) 29 International Insolvency Review.↩︎

25. Alfino Eu, ‘Valuation Issues In The UK Restructuring Plan’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal.↩︎

26. Jain Y, Doshi H. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Framework and Principle of Business Efficacy across Different Jurisdictions in the COVID Era. Business Law Review. [2021]↩︎

27. Lynch Fannon I, Gant JL. JCOERE-Judicial Co-Operation in the European Union: Insolvency and Rescue. Chapter. 2020 Sep 20;9:107-19.↩︎

28. Bär, A.L., Recent Developments in South African Consumer Insolvency Law-An analysis of the National Credit Amendment Act 7 of 2019 and its possible impact on the economy, taking into account the experiences of the British, New Zealand and German legal systems [2020]. (Master’s thesis, Faculty of Law).↩︎

29. RG Evans, ‘Insolvency Law’ (2020) 1 Yearbook of South African Law.↩︎