The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 makes the most significant changes to UK insolvency law in a generation. It had a rapid passage through the UK parliamentary process, making its way from first publication on 20 May 2020 to Royal assent on 25 June 2020 in just over five weeks. This article provides a brief overview of the key measures introduced by the Act (both permanent and temporary) and summarises the amendments made to the Act during its progress through parliament. It also provides links to our further, more in-depth, analysis.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 has introduced a new standalone moratorium procedure for companies.¹ The moratorium is part of a package of significant legislative reforms contained in the Act, intended to enhance the UK’s restructuring rescue culture. These were originally consulted on between 2016 and 2018 and were fast-tracked to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Overview

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill has been described as an “extraordinary Bill for extraordinary times” . First published on 20 May 2020, it has had a rapid passage through the UK parliamentary process, so it could become law (an Act of Parliament) by the end of June. At the time of writing, the Bill is almost at the end of its parliamentary journey with only one final stage outstanding - a return to the House of Commons for a consideration of amendments - before it is sent for Royal Assent and becomes law.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduces a new standalone moratorium procedure for companies. The moratorium is part of a package of significant legislative reforms contained in the Bill and intended to enhance the UK’s restructuring rescue culture. These were originally consulted on in 2018 and have now been fast-tracked to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit held that appellants’ state law constructive fraudulent transfer claims were preempted by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbors that exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for

On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a basis for a final appealable ruling, or whether it simply is a controversy that is part of the broader Chapter 11 case, such that appeals would not need to be taken until the conclusion of the Chapter 11 case.

The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements — through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated — was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.

On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.

On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision holding that “impairment” under a plan of reorganization does not arise even if a creditor is paid less than it would be entitled to under its contract, so long as the reduced recovery is due to the plan’s incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code’s disallowance provisions.

Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.