Throughout the pandemic, a steady stream of government support was made available to prop-up businesses. As we move towards a New Normal, those support packages are being scaled-back. Many businesses are still recovering from the shock of the last 18 months and, with high levels of historic debt as an additional burden, are not yet back to full financial health.

This blog entry will be the first in a new, ongoing series of entries in the “Bankruptcy Protector” that will attempt to familiarize new attorneys and non-bankruptcy practitioners with the basic concepts of bankruptcy law of which all lawyers should be aware.

Creditors of English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) have appointed a licensed insolvency practitioner to act as his Trustee in Bankruptcy to investigate any claims against him and seek to recover any hidden assets.

Robinson applied for bankruptcy shortly after his divorce in February 2021, and while libel proceedings were ongoing against him. A bankruptcy order was made on 3 March 2021. In July 2021, Robinson was ordered to pay £100,000 in damages, together with legal costs, on top of his bankruptcy debts, which are estimated at £2m.

Administrators of Arena Television are reportedly investigating an alleged fraud involving millions of pandemic loans, where government-backed loans were offered to businesses to help them deal with the pandemic, and are suing two of the directors for breach of fiduciary duty. More companies may be in a similar position as, according to the National Audit Office, it is likely that the level of fraud in the bounce back loan scheme ranges from £3.5bn to £4.9bn. Who can claim these ill-gotten gains?

Directors’ duties

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the ever-churning waters of the Countryman test for determining whether a contract is executory, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana recently dipped its toe. The question before the court was whether surety bonds issued to an oil and gas company were executory. The district court, upholding the bankruptcy court below, held that they were not. An analysis of this opinion sheds light on why the surety bonds are not executory and provides lessons for both creditors and debtors, alike.

Following the recent surge in wholesale energy prices, we are seeing increasing numbers of energy supplier insolvency in the news and customers are finding themselves transferred to new providers.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

Suppliers can no longer terminate contracts, refuse to supply goods or services or amend payment terms with an insolvent customer due to its insolvency, save in limited circumstances. The new rules - brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) - governing protection of supplies significantly restrict parties’ autonomy in relation to customer insolvency and will be a cause of concern for many suppliers.

New protection of supplies to insolvent companies

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dealt a blow to debtors seeking Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). In a decision entered on Monday, June 22, Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Jovita Carranza (In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation) that could have long-lasting ramifications for many debtors, both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit.

Although the contentious background to the applications to restrain the presentation of two winding up petitions heard together in (but only listed singularly as) the case of Shorts Gardens LLB v London Borough of Camden Council [2020] EWHC 1001 (Ch) is somewhat unusual, these cases nonetheless raise some interesting points of principle which may be used by the courts in determining whether it is appropriate to restrain or dismiss a winding up petition due to COVID-19.