Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

As we see more businesses having to close doors or adapt to a new set of rules, we set out a summary of some of the issues we anticipate for those needing to shut down but preserve their businesses at least until the lockdown is over. We will produce a more detailed client alert as matters develop although one message is clear – employers, employees, suppliers and customers are facing unique challenges and the best way to survive is to identify the issue, understand the options, and engage with pragmatism.

Employees

In this article, we focus on working capital and consider ways a business can seek to weather the storm and preserve all-important liquidity through this challenging period.

Practical Tips

Given the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19 globally, what can senior management do in order to manage and mitigate the risk to the company's financial health?

The Pension Schemes Bill 2019 is causing a marked degree of consternation in the restructuring community. The proposed legislation introduces new offences that can be prosecuted in the criminal courts and further moral hazard powers that are likely to significantly reduce the directors’ and insolvency practitioners’ ability to provide commercial and creative solutions to creditors of financially stressed companies.

At clause 107, the Bill introduces two new criminal offences and below we address the concerns these cause:

With the introduction of electronic filing which allows parties to file documents at court 24/7 we consider the recent case of Wright v HMV Ecommerce Limited (2019) in which the court was asked to confirm whether administrators were validly appointed following the directors filing a notice of appointment after the court office was closed.

The Electronic Working Pilot Scheme (“EWP“) Practice Direction came into effect in 2015, initially in the London region. It now applies in all Business and Property Courts in England and Wales from 30 April 2019.

In the last week we have seen MPs criticise accountancy firms, KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PWC in their first report on the collapse of Carillion, describing the big four as “a cosy club” and calling for the firms to be forcibly broken up. Whilst not suggesting that the firms were to blame for the collapse, it is the level of fees reportedly paid to the firms which caught the MPs attention– £72 million in 10 years.