In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.
Periodically courts remind corporate directors that their decisions to act or to refrain from acting during the course of managing the affairs of a corporation are not without limitations. It is well established that corporate directors owe fiduciary duties, and more specifically, a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to corporate shareholders. Those duties should always be at the front of mind of every director when any action or inaction is contemplated, but in particular, when addressing challenging issues facing the corporation.
On 12 May 2021, in the first opposed cross-class cram down case, the English High Court sanctioned Virgin Active's restructuring plans, the first to bind landlords to lease compromises.
The decision
While the opposing landlords challenged the valuation evidence advanced by the companies, they did not advance evidence of their own. The court accepted the companies' evidence that:
On 17 May 2021, in the third of a trio of landlord challenge cases, the English High Court revoked Regis UK Limited's company voluntary arrangement (CVA) on one ground of unfair prejudice, but ruled against landlords seeking repayment of fees against the nominees.
The facts
On 10 May 2021, the English High Court rejected landlords’ challenge to the company voluntary arrangement (CVA) of fashion retailer, New Look. The New Look decision was the first in a trio of highly significant judgments focused on a distressed tenant's ability to compromise landlord's claims (our coverage of the Virgin Active and Regis decisions is available below).
The challenge
The landlords' challenge focused on jurisdiction, unfair prejudice and material irregularity as a result of the following:
IP licensing and insolvency reform: ipso facto clauses
Licensors of intellectual property rights may soon be unable to terminate licenses where the licensee has gone into an insolvency process.
What are ipso facto clauses and why do they matter?
How was the CIGB received?
Were there any concerns?
What has changed?
What else was proposed?
What's next?
A recap
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?
Licensors of intellectual property rights may soon be unable to terminate licences where the licensee has gone into an insolvency process.
What are ipso facto clauses and why do they matter?