The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 received Royal Assent and is now in force.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 received Royal Assent and is now in force.

The detrimental impact of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill on defined benefit (DB) pension schemes and the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) has been highlighted forcefully by peers in the first sitting of the Committee stage in the House of Lords, which took place yesterday. The leading statements made by peers, together with the Government’s response from Lord Callanan can be found below.

The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil.

The Government on 20 May 2020 published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which contains the most far-reaching reforms to UK insolvency law in over 30 years. The Bill has been introduced on an emergency basis in an attempt to ensure that otherwise financially viable companies survive during a period of unprecedented interruption and turmoil. However, it could upset the delicate balance between debtors and creditors under UK insolvency law.

Yesterday, the Government introduced legislation before Parliament, in the form of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill, which will make radical changes to the UK insolvency regime. The goal of the legislation is to prevent otherwise viable companies from failing as a result of current events.

On Monday, in its response to the consultation on protecting DB pension schemes and strengthening the Pensions Regulator, the Government confirmed its plans to:

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever