Further to our blog about measures announced by the Government to protect commercial tenants from “aggressive” rent collection strategies, the Government subsequently confirmed that the restrictions will apply (unless extended) from:

At the end of March, the Government introduced measures providing a moratorium on evictions for commercial tenants for non-payment of rent until 30 June 2020.

COVID-19 is placing unprecedented strain on all businesses, and insolvency practitioner (“IP”) practices are no exception. Government-imposed restrictions on activities and movement will have a direct impact on the ability to carry on business as usual. There may be fewer employees available (through illness, self-isolation and furloughing), strain placed on remote working capabilities and a limited ability to carry out site visits to deal with cases as usual. Closure of schools and caring responsibilities may also lead to reduced personnel capacity.

COVID-19 and Government-imposed restrictions are placing an unprecedented strain on everyone and businesses and individuals may be facing extreme financial pressure. COVID-19 is impacting businesses throughout the supply chain in most, if not all, sectors. This may mean that clients and debtors are unable to meet their obligations and there may need to be changes as to how these are dealt with. This note aims to provide some guidance to help Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) deal with certain practical issues that may arise in active cases.

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York recently analyzed whether a debtor may exempt from her bankruptcy estate a retirement account that was bequeathed to her upon the death of her parent. In In re Todd, 585 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y 2018), the court addressed an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption in an inherited retirement account, and held that the property was not exempt under New York and federal law.

In Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries (In re BFW Liquidation), 899 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that a liability for an allegedly preferential transfer may be reduced by the amount of new value given, regardless of whether that new value has already been repaid by the debtor before its bankruptcy filing.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling,[1] resolving a circuit split on the issue of whether a debtor’s statement about a single asset constitutes “a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Alerts and Updates

The Supreme Court’s opinion is significant because it will encourage creditors to rely on written, rather than oral, statements of debtors as to both their assets and overall financial status, which are better evidence in a nondischargeability case.

In a recent decision out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, a court analyzed the effect of a setoff effectuated between two governmental units in the 90 days prior to the filing of a husband and wife’s bankruptcy case. In Hurt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Hurt), 579 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2017), the court addressed competing motions for summary judgment filed by the debtors, on the one hand, and the U.S.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding, 580 U.S. __(2017), decided on March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reverses the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.