The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 has been signed into law. The Act, once commenced, will amend the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations and will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.

Background

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 has been signed into law. The text of the Act remains unchanged from when we published a briefing on the Bill in December here.

At A Glance

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Bill 2023 (the “Bill”) proposes amendments to the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations. If enacted, the Bill will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.

A recently published Bill proposes amendments to the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations. If enacted, the Bill will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

Introduction

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.

Facts

Setoff is a right that allows a creditor to offset a prepetition debt owed to a debtor with its prepetition claim against the debtor.  See In re Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir.