01 Sep 2010
The Conservatives have ‘quietly dropped’ their plans for business insolvency reform after opposition from business leaders, according to the FT.
Prime minister David Cameron had originally called for the introduction of US-style Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection rules, saying the UK’s insolvency process did not offer enough protection to distressed companies, a move that was met with little enthusiasm in the corporate world.
The newspaper says this will put pressure on the coalition to protect struggling firms from banks hoping to use an economic recovery to sell their assets and call in loans.
With the plans seemingly abandoned, Conservative MP George Eustace has tabled a private members’ bill aiming to “reduce litigation and encourage banks to work with their customers to find solutions” and, he says, bring in “much needed responsibility in the banking sector.”
A spokesperson from the government’s business department told the paper that it kept “insolvency policies under review, making sure they are effective and relevant”.
Further reading:
You may also like
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
Visitor comments Add your comment
Do the Tories fully understand Chapter 11?
I'm not sure that many who advocate a "Chapter 11" approach appreciate that the substantial majority of Chapter 11 cases end in liquidation and that US authorities are moving towards a "trustee" approach through appointment of supervisors. Let's be clearer on facing where companies are not viable, ie illiquid and not merely insolvent. Let's be equally hard on banks where credit committees seem to have forgotten how to assess risk and are pre-occupied with ditching risk they brought on themselves through unwise lending and crass/arbitrary reduction in facilities.
Posted by: david kinnon, 01 Sep 2010 | 00:00
What a shame
A piece of legislation that could have been so helpful!
Posted by: Fenella Tibbs, 01 Sep 2010 | 00:00
liquidity vs solvency
An insolvent company may not be rescuable by Chapter 11 style protection; its liabilities exceed its assets. One that is only illiquid, i.e is solvent but doesn't have enough cash could usefully be protected so it can recover to a position of liquidity again and therefore either continue in business or give full value to all stakeholders. If a bank uses a customer's liquidity crisis to recover loans etc. , it destroys a potentially viable business, reducing value for other stakeholders, which is why Chapter 11 is there I suppose the problem is it also protects poor management from having to resolve liquidity problems. I would say that as banks have been shown not to be self-regulating responsible businesses in every case, Chapter 11 style protection would overall be beneficial to the economy
Posted by: Geoff Simons, 02 Sep 2010 | 00:00