The interaction between the principles of insolvency law and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (JRS) have come into sharp focus in recent weeks, with the administrators of Carluccio's and Debenhams seeking guidance from the English courts about how the scheme impacts on their obligations to employees.
As part of its response to the COVID-19 situation, Companies House has announced that it will accept the filing of statutory insolvency documents via emailed PDF attachments.
This measure applies to companies registered in Scotland, as well as England & Wales and is yet another practical example of the steps being taken to try and alleviate the administrative burden on insolvency practitioners.
It is perhaps not as well-known as it should be that the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 sections 195 – 198 provides a six-week moratorium – effectively a postponement or period of protection from action to recover debts - to individuals, partnerships and trusts facing financial distress or liquidity issues.
The moratorium provides breathing space to allow parties to be protected from their creditors while they take advice and consider what debt relief options might be available to them.
A party can normally apply for the moratorium once in any 12-month period.
Wrongful trading rules, which can result in directors being personally liable for losses incurred as a result of continued trading, are being temporarily suspended in recognition of the large number of businesses being impacted by COVID-19. While this news will be welcomed by businesses across the UK, directors should not be complacent about their responsibilities.
The liquidation of Thomas Cook Group last month – and the ensuing cancellation of all flights and repatriation of 140,000+ customers – has prompted fresh scrutiny of the UK’s approach to airline insolvency.
You have been reading for months that the U.S. Supreme Court approved amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) that go into effect on December 1, 2017. You also may have ignored these changes because they affect Chapter 13 consumer cases and may not impact your commercial bankruptcy practice.
Right?
In a move that surprised bankruptcy practitioners and other observers, a Delaware bankruptcy court recently rescinded an order approving a $275 million break-up fee relating to a failed merger.
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a Seventh Circuit decision regarding the scope of the so-called “safe harbor” from avoidable transfers provided in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Many in the U.S. bankruptcy industry expect that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, in order to resolve a long-running split among the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 10th Circuits, on the one hand, and the 7th and 11th Circuits on the other.
Recently, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to the professionals retained by an unsecured creditors’ committee (the “Committee”). Rather, in In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del.
When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.