As the coronavirus pandemic began spreading through Europe in the early months of 2020, the authorities had little idea of how best to respond – both to the virus itself, and its impact on livelihoods and businesses.
But since then, Europe’s major economies have introduced a suite of measures to contain COVID-19’s spread and keep the economic fallout from social restrictions to a minimum.
In March 2020, the UK government announced that changes will be made to enable UK companies undergoing a rescue or restructure process to continue trading, giving them breathing space that could help them avoid insolvency.
The legislation implementing this has now been laid before Parliament in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. This includes measures intended to tide companies through the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as far-reaching wholesale reforms to the UK’s restructuring toolbox.
As the business world starts to count the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government measures taken to contain it, attention is turning to the tools available to help companies that have been financially impacted.
Many companies are deferring payments to conserve liquidity, raising difficult questions around directors’ duties and leading to an immediate focus on how to protect the business from resulting creditor action.
The English Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the Debenhams case, on which we acted. A copy of the judgment can be downloaded here. This upholds the decision of the High Court, which followed the earlier decision in Carluccio’s.
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.
How would your business be impacted if one of your critical suppliers entered insolvency proceedings? What losses could you suffer, and how would you maintain continuity of supply?
Recent high profile collapses such as Carillion have highlighted this issue, with counterparties suffering significant disruption upon its failure. In the context of increasing financial uncertainty – not least because of Brexit – companies should take a hard look at their supply chain in order to assess and mitigate counterparty risk.
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.