Will the end of the moratorium on evicting commercial tenants in March prompt more CVAs?

With the moratorium on forfeiture of commercial leases for non-payment of rent set to expire on 31 March, many tenants will be working out how to pay their rents. Using a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) may offer one way of compromising rents if landlords decline to negotiate a rent reduction.

But the road towards a CVA is not without its potholes, and there are two key signs that landlords are growing increasingly savvy when reacting to them.

On 29 September 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 came into force. To keep this snippy, we’ll refer to these new Regulations as “CIGAR”.

Assuming the Pizza Express company voluntary arrangement (CVA) follows the approach taken by other casual diners and retailers who have also launched CVAs recently, we can predict with some confidence what the Pizza Express CVA proposal might say.

The first half of 2020 saw a wave of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) as companies explored their restructuring options against the backdrop of a darkening economic outlook.

Hot off the press, yesterday we learnt a great deal more about the proposed suspension of the UK’s wrongful trading laws with the publication of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2019-21.

The extraordinary disruption to UK business caused by the COVID-19 lockdown has spawned much discussion about changes to existing insolvency laws to help businesses which are struggling to survive in this abnormal environment. One topic of discussion has been the so-called ‘light touch’ administration. Here we provide a quick overview of what this involves.

What do we mean by a ‘light touch’ administration?

Our private credit clients are preparing for the next restructuring cycle and have called us about ultrafast bankruptcy cases. These chapter 11 cases have grabbed headlines because they lasted less than a day. Specifically, FullBeauty Brands and Sungard Availability Services emerged from bankruptcy in 24 hours and 19 hours, respectively. Is this a trend and which companies are best suited to zip through chapter 11?

A. Prepacks, Pre-Negotiated Cases, and Free-Falls

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).