On Wednesday 24 March, the government confirmed that it will be extending the current temporary restrictions on statutory demands and winding-up petitions and the temporary suspension of directors’ liability for wrongful trading put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, until 30 June 2021.

The extensions, set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021, laid before parliament on 24 March, will come into effect on 26 March 2021.

Today the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced that certain temporary measures put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June, will be extended.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 were laid before the UK Parliament today and will come into force on 29 September 2020. Pursuant to these regulations, statutory demands and winding-up petitions will continue to be restricted until 31 December 2020.

The new UK legislation for companies in financial difficulty represents a fundamental shift in approach to restructuring in Europe and adds an important new tool to the UK restructuring framework. The availability of a plan proposed under the new Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (a “Restructuring Plan”) will undoubtedly change how many distressed companies seek to address their financial difficulties. However, until case law is developed, there will remain considerable uncertainty as to how the Restructuring Plan will work in practice.

Today, the Government published the highly anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “CIGB”).  It legislates for the landmark changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime and the temporary suspension of the statutory provisions on wrongful trading announced by the Business Secretary on 28 March 2020 (see Weil’s European Restructuring Watch update of 30 March 2020).

Our private credit clients are preparing for the next restructuring cycle and have called us about ultrafast bankruptcy cases. These chapter 11 cases have grabbed headlines because they lasted less than a day. Specifically, FullBeauty Brands and Sungard Availability Services emerged from bankruptcy in 24 hours and 19 hours, respectively. Is this a trend and which companies are best suited to zip through chapter 11?

A. Prepacks, Pre-Negotiated Cases, and Free-Falls

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.