New rules in the UK allow Companies House to share non-public information with insolvency officeholders and the Official Receiver.

While in many cases there may be limited non-public information available from Companies House that will be useful to insolvency officeholders, this is another tool available to deploy in appropriate cases. It is specifically envisaged to assist officeholders pursuing claims for fraudulent and wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue and preferences.

Following a series of important decisions in England and across Europe, it is now beyond doubt that court-based restructuring processes should be approached from the outset as pieces of litigation.

We have seen increasingly sophisticated challenges to restructurings, which the courts are willing to accommodate. In appropriate cases, the courts have also refused to sanction restructurings.

The number of company insolvencies in 2023 increased by over a third compared to 2022. The hospitality sector was particularly badly affected, with 53% more insolvencies than in 2022.

It appears that 2024 will be similarly challenging for companies in the hospitality sector. The Restaurant Association of Ireland (RAI) has set out the main challenges faced by the industry, including increased energy and labour costs, and the VAT rate reverting to 13.5% after having been reduced to 9% during the covid-19 pandemic.

The High Court has reaffirmed the test to be applied in considering an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons grounded on a judgment.

The bankruptcy process in Ireland involves multiple steps and the debtor can seek to bring it to a halt at each step. Debtors often seek to rerun effectively the same arguments at each step, ignoring previous findings by the courts. One such step is an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons.

Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.

The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.

This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.

Background