After the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIGB) was published on 20 May 2020, it raced through the House of Commons and House of Lords and, on 26 June 2020 (in under 6 weeks) came into force as the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), with certain of the temporary measures taking effect from 1 March 2020.

How was the CIGB received?

How do you safeguard your interests if you find yourself dealing with a company that enters an insolvency process or is at risk of insolvency, whether as a contract counterparty or in a dispute? Conversely, if you find prospective contract counterparties raising concerns about your company's solvency, what protections might you be able to offer your counterparty in order to continue the relationship?

Facts

Snowden J heard two applications for injunctions to restrain the presentation of two winding-up petitions, against Saint Benedict's Land Trust Limited (SBLT) and Shorts Gardens LLP (SG), respectively. The respondent creditors were Camden and Preston councils in relation to unpaid liability orders in respect of NNDR (National Non Domestic Rates) and other unpaid costs orders.

The much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) was published on 20 May 2020.

The proposed legislation is split into two broad categories: temporary provisions brought about as a result of COVID-19 and permanent provisions which will result in fundamental changes to UK insolvency law. The proposals, both temporary and permanent, reflect a shift towards a more debtor-friendly regime.

Our private credit clients are preparing for the next restructuring cycle and have called us about ultrafast bankruptcy cases. These chapter 11 cases have grabbed headlines because they lasted less than a day. Specifically, FullBeauty Brands and Sungard Availability Services emerged from bankruptcy in 24 hours and 19 hours, respectively. Is this a trend and which companies are best suited to zip through chapter 11?

A. Prepacks, Pre-Negotiated Cases, and Free-Falls

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

The Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2015 (the “2015 Rules”) came into force on 1 October 2015. They amended the 1986 Insolvency Rules to introduce a new approach to the approval and payment of insolvency office holders (“IOH”s)’ fees and disbursements.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.