Earlier this month, judgments were handed down in the landlord challenges to two Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs"), New Look and Regis. The challenge to the New Look CVA was unsuccessful, although permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been given. Whilst the Regis challenge lead to the revocation of the CVA, the majority of the landlords' arguments failed. These judgments provide important guidance on the use of landlord CVAs and their terms.
Introduction
Introduction – the framework
On May 20, 2020, the UK Government published its much anticipated draft legislation (the Corporate Governance and Insolvency Bill) which aims to provide greater opportunities for company survival and better returns for creditors during and after the COVID-19 emergency. The Government intends to ask Parliament to expedite progress of the Bill.
On March 28, 2020[1], the UK Government announced that it will introduce new legislation extending the UK’s existing restructuring and insolvency laws to include:
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 High Court gave its ruling yesterday in the case of Discover (Northampton) Limited and others v Debenhams Retail Limited and others [2019] EWHC 2441 (Ch), rejecting four of the five grounds on which the Applicants disputed the validity of the company's Creditors Voluntary Arrangement ("CVA"), which was approved by creditors in May 2019.
Introduction The UK Government has announced that it will be introducing legislation under which the UK tax authorities1 will move up the creditor hierarchy in English insolvency proceedings2 in respect of certain taxes paid by
Introduction
For more than a century, a creditor holding English law governed debt relied on the principle (known as the “rule in Gibbs ”) that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged by a foreign insolvency proceeding, provided that the creditor does not submit to that proceeding.
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.