On 20 May 2020, the UK Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”) to the House of Commons. The Bill introduces a new debtor-in-possession moratorium to give companies breathing space in order to try to rescue the company as a going concern. The Bill is currently only in draft form and therefore amendments may be made. It is anticipated that the legislation will come into force by the end of June 2020.

This blog (the first in a series of blogs about this new measure) outlines the key provisions of the moratorium and how it will work.

As discussed in an earlier Legal Update,¹ substantial uncertainty exists over whether companies in bankruptcy are eligible for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, which was established by the CARES Act to support small businesses by offering SBA-guaranteed loans on advantageous terms. Several recent bankruptcy court decisions underscore this uncertainty.

Further to our blog about measures announced by the Government to protect commercial tenants from “aggressive” rent collection strategies, the Government subsequently confirmed that the restrictions will apply (unless extended) from:

At the end of March, the Government introduced measures providing a moratorium on evictions for commercial tenants for non-payment of rent until 30 June 2020.

As courts across the country deal with scaled back operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy courts in New Jersey and Delaware have issued novel orders to address the impact of the virus on certain debtors. Last month, debtors in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and CraftWorks Parent, LLC each sought and obtained court orders suspending certain case activity which, for all intents and purposes “mothballed” the cases for a certain period of time.

COVID-19 is placing unprecedented strain on all businesses, and insolvency practitioner (“IP”) practices are no exception. Government-imposed restrictions on activities and movement will have a direct impact on the ability to carry on business as usual. There may be fewer employees available (through illness, self-isolation and furloughing), strain placed on remote working capabilities and a limited ability to carry out site visits to deal with cases as usual. Closure of schools and caring responsibilities may also lead to reduced personnel capacity.

COVID-19 and Government-imposed restrictions are placing an unprecedented strain on everyone and businesses and individuals may be facing extreme financial pressure. COVID-19 is impacting businesses throughout the supply chain in most, if not all, sectors. This may mean that clients and debtors are unable to meet their obligations and there may need to be changes as to how these are dealt with. This note aims to provide some guidance to help Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) deal with certain practical issues that may arise in active cases.

Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.

In recent weeks, the dispute in Windstream’s bankruptcy between Windstream and its REIT spinoff Uniti Group over the lease transaction that ultimately led to Windstream’s chapter 11 bankruptcy has continued to escalate with Windstream filing an adversary complaint against Uniti. In its complaint, Windstream seeks to recharacterize the lease as a disguised financing alleging that the lease resulted in a long-term transfer of billions of dollars to Uniti to the detriment of Windstream’s creditors.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.