Earlier this year the UK Government introduced a number of temporary measures intended to avoid large scale insolvencies across the country. One of these measures was the suspension of wrongful trading liability.

This suspension was in place until September 30, 2020. Most of the other temporary measures were extended (e.g. the effective suspension of winding up petitions by creditors has been extended until December 31, 2020) but the suspension of wrongful trading liability was not extended.

The Insolvency Service has released the latest insolvency statistics (to September 2020). 

These figures are particularly interesting as they shed light on the effects of the various changes to the insolvency landscape that have occurred since Covid-19 started to affect the economy.

Since March 2020, we have seen the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act ("CIGA"), Government schemes and lockdowns of various sizes, shapes and geographical restrictions. 

The statutory provisions for Restructuring Plans form a new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006. CIGA was brought into force on June 26, 2020 and at a hearing in the High Court in London on September 2, 2020, the plan proposed by Virgin Atlantic, which was the first to be brought before the courts, was sanctioned.

Virtually every business—regardless of its size, nature (manufacturing, service, professional, tech) or particular industry—is currently suffering significant distress as a result of the unprecedented shutdown of huge portions of the U.S. (and global) economy. It is therefore clear that the number of businesses (and individuals) who will seek bankruptcy protection in the coming months will be enormous.

In a recent decision, the Chief Judge of the District Court for the Southern District of New York reversed a decision of the bankruptcy court in the Sears bankruptcy case that was prejudicial to the interests of shopping center landlords whose tenants become chapter 11 debtors.

A majority of today’s large Chapter 11 cases are structured as quick Section 363 sales of all the debtor’s assets followed by confirmation of a plan of liquidation, dismissal of the case, or a conversion to a Chapter 7. The purchaser in the sale is often one of the debtor’s prepetition secured or undersecured lenders, which may also act as the debtor-inpossession (DIP) lender and purchase the debtor’s assets through a credit bid, with no cash consideration.

Most observers of the world of chapter 11 bankruptcy cases – and particularly those professionals who practice in that arena – will not be surprised to learn that their individual experiences and anecdotal reports suggesting that the duration of Chapter 11 cases has continued to shrink have been validated by Fitch Ratings, one of the “big three” credit rating agencies. Fitch’s August 7, 2018 report, entitled “Shrinking Length of U.S. Bankruptcies,” provides many useful statistics and analyses of recent and historical trends in chapter 11 cases.

In a decision last month in Whyte v. SemGroup Litig. Trust (In re Semcrude L.P.), No. 14-4356, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7690 (3d Cir. Apr. 28, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that proving that a debtor was left with unreasonably small capital will not turn on either hindsight or a “speculative exercise” based on what might have happened if certain things were known at the time.

Many a bankruptcy attorney has been approached by an angry client who is owed a large amount from, or has obtained a judgment against another party, but has been frustrated in efforts to collect and wants to “throw them into bankruptcy.”  After trying to calm the client down, the attorney will go over the technical requirements for commencing an involuntary bankruptcy case and will undoubtedly carefully explain the financial risks that lie in wait in the event that the putative debtor opposes the bankruptcy and is successful in having it dismissed.  Specifically, section 303(j) of

In our e-updates of 20 January 2010 and 16 August 2010, we looked at decisions of the English and Scottish courts from December 2009 and August 2010 in which it was decided that, in England and Scotland respectively, the Administrators of a tenant company are bound to account to the landlord of premises for rent due in relation to the period during which those premises are being u