The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has published the General Scheme of the Companies (Small Company Administrative Rescue Process and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021. The General Scheme of the Bill amends the Companies Act 2014 to provide for a rescue process specifically designed for small and micro enterprises known as the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (“SCARP”). Up to 98% of companies fall within the definition of small and micro enterprises and thus have the option to avail of the process where the eligibility criteria are met.

Yesterday, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment announced that the Government has approved the extension until 31 December 2021 of the period during which the interim measures introduced under the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Act 2020 (the 2020 Act) (link to announcement here) will apply.

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

While there has been much fuss over the recent ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation¹ due to its potential ramifications for director liability, as we explored in Part I of our series on this case here, court watchers have paid less attention to the court’s treatment of officer liability and the interes

Introduction

A recent ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sent shock waves through the legal and financial community, with some shouting that this “could be a gamestopper for the private equity business.”¹ Although the ruling in In re Nine West LBO Securities Litigation² breaks new ground and arguably narrows the protections available to directors under the normally-broad business judgment rule, there are clear lessons others can take from this saga to prevent a similar fate.

Executive Summary

A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, In re Care Ctrs., LLC, No. 18-33967, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3205 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2020), examined (1) the scope of bankruptcy court subject-matter jurisdiction for post-confirmation actions filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court; and (2) when the court must or should abstain and remand a proceeding back to the court where the action was originally brought.

OVERVIEW

In a decision of McDonald J in RESAM Cork UC & Anor v Monsoon Accessorize Ltd & Anor, Apperley Investments Ltd & Ors v Monsoon Accessorize Ltd¹, the High Court refused to recognise and enforce certain provisions of Monsoon Accessorize Limited’s ("Monsoon") Company Voluntary Arrangement implemented in the United Kingdom as they related to Irish leases on the basis that to do so would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the State.

In an important decision issued at the end of August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in In re Tribune Co., Case No. 18-2909 (3d Cir. Aug. 26, 2020), held that subordination agreements need not be strictly enforced when confirming a chapter 11 plan pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provision in section 1129(b)(1). In its decision, the Third Circuit also encouraged bankruptcy courts to apply “a more flexible unfair-discrimination standard” and set forth eight guiding principles to aid in that effort.