Back in July, Craig Eller wrote in The Bankruptcy Protector about the continuing confusion amongst courts and litigants regarding the applicability of a 2018 increase in fees payable to the Office of the United States Trustee in chapter 11 cases.

While examinership is a successful and internationally recognised rescue process for Irish companies, there has been a concern for some time that is out of reach of smaller businesses due to the associated costs. As part of the government’s response to the economic challenges of the pandemic, the Department of Enterprise has published a rescue process for small and micro businesses.

While the recent Brexit trade deal contains various provisions for the conduct of trade in the post-Brexit era, it does not provide clarification for new cross-border insolvency proceedings involving the United Kingdom.

However, the Withdrawal Agreement which came into force on 1 February 2020 and established the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, does provide some comfort for insolvency practitioners, but only where insolvency proceedings were opened prior to the end of the Brexit transition period.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357, 2021 WL 125106, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2021), the United States Supreme Court considered the issue of whether the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition violates section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. Reversing the Seventh Circuit and resolving a split among the circuits, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 14, 2021 “that mere retention of property does not violate the [automatic stay in] § 362(a)(3).”

With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming large, the implications for Irish insolvency practitioners is something we will all have to consider. The insolvency landscape will most likely look very different when we all return to the office after Christmas. This is a discussion on some of the possible implications for Irish and UK insolvency practitioners post-Brexit.

Current Regime

With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming large, the implications for Irish insolvency practitioners is something we will all have to consider. The insolvency landscape will most likely look very different when we all return to the office after Christmas. This is a discussion on some of the possible implications for Irish and UK insolvency practitioners post-Brexit.

Current Regime

We will soon enter a phase of the Covid19 era when more and more companies will be forced to apply for protection from their creditors under the Examinership provisions of the Companies Act, 2014. Security as always will be a key consideration for the stakeholders in this restructuring process. Fixed and floating charges are almost always well protected but what about personal or corporate guarantees?

The legislation

The legislation is very specific regarding guarantees.

Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.

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.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.