In May 2021, the UK Government published a Consultation which set out its proposals for targeted (but significant) amendments to certain aspects of the existing UK insolvency arrangements for insurers.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied motions to dismiss the chapter 11 case of the newly created subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, LTL Management LLC, and granted the debtor’s motion to stay prosecution of actions asserting talc related personal injuries against its J&J affiliates and the products distributors. This is the first opinion outside the North Carolina bankruptcy court approving the use of the so-called Texas Two Step as a bankruptcy execution strategy.
The Motions to Dismiss
Regulated firms using company or insolvency law procedures to manage their liabilities could face action by the FCA if their proposals unfairly benefit them at the expense of their customers. The FCA has put forward draft guidance setting out the new role which it would have when a regulated firm proposes a compromise, what information it expects to be provided and the key factors which the FCA will consider.
In December 2021 the Insolvency Service launched a Consultation on the future of insolvency regulation. The Consultation proposes a number of changes that will have a significant impact on the insolvency profession, including the creation of a single regulator for insolvency professionals and bringing firms providing insolvency services within the scope of insolvency regulation for the first time. The deadline for responses is 25 March 2022, although there is no specified timeline for the implementation of any reforms.
Key Takeaways
Highlights
High Court sanctions scheme of arrangement proposed by the Provident Finance group
Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).
Background
Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.
In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.
Background