The UK government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIGB) to Parliament on 20 May 2020. As well as including temporary measures to help support businesses affected by COVID-19, it proposes significant permanent changes to UK insolvency law. These proposed permanent changes include a new company moratorium: a mechanism to give a company in financial difficulty a temporary breathing space against creditor action, during which the directors remain in control, but overseen by a monitor.

On 20 May, Parliament had its first reading of the Bill, a detailed document containing all the expected provisions applying across England, Wales and Scotland, and with separate (but substantially similar) provisions for Northern Ireland.

MPs will next consider all stages of the Bill on 3 June 2020 and it is anticipated that this will be fast-tracked to become law in July.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

On 28 March 2020 the UK government announced that emergency measures will be implemented to provide protection to directors of companies which continue to trade notwithstanding the threat of insolvency, and to prevent, where possible, companies entering into insolvency due to COVID-19.

The proposed measures are as follows:

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.

We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.

Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.

In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.

A bankruptcy trustee exercising her or his avoidance powers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code may seek to recover the avoidably transferred property (or its value) from “the initial transferee,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made” and “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.”[1] Despite the authorization to seek recovery from multiple sources, “[t]he trustee is entitled to only a sin

Our May 22 post reported on the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.