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 4 and 5 May 2021, the Supreme Court heard an appeal in BTI 2104 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25 and this week it gave its judgment. The length of the time taken to issue the judgment reflects both the complexity of the issues involved and the importance of the questions raised for company law in the UK.

To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.

One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.

In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.

The legal market in Scotland has changed over the last year, although perhaps not to the extent that anyone would have predicted. Firms have, in general terms, coped well with remote working and are beginning to cope well with hybrid working too. Traditional streams of work have been maintained and while some practice areas, such as insolvency and restructuring, have been quieter than anticipated, that has not had a significant impact on the bottom line. So, what can we expect in 2022?

1. Insolvencies will rise – even if we don’t experience the “tsunami”

Introduction
Business Bankruptcy Filings
Public Company Bankruptcies
Notable Bankruptcy Rulings
Legislative Developments

One year ago, we wrote that the large business bankruptcy landscape in 2019 was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, with notable exceptions for disastrous wildfires, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, price-fixing fallout, and corporate restructuring shenanigans.

The year 2020 was a different story altogether. The headline was COVID-19.

We all know 2020 made an impact – and as we look at the year ahead, there are a few repercussions of the incredible strain placed on businesses that are likely to come into the limelight as a result. While there are some global trends in litigation – like litigation funding and class actions - some Scotland specific trends are also worth highlighting. With that in mind, here are the five key things for litigators to watch in the year ahead:

1) Frustration and leases in Scots law

One of the temporary measures that was not extended was the disapplication of the wrongful trading rules of section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 as regards the personal liability of company directors. The discontinuation of the temporary protection has been criticised by business and most recently by the Institute of Directors (IoD) which commented that "Failing to extend the suspension of wrongful trading rules was a mistake. Without this protection, the pressure is on directors to simply shut up shop when faced with difficulty". Is that concern justified?