Despite the scale of the pandemic and resulting build-up of Covid related rent arrears, currently estimated at around £4.5bn, business restructuring has been relatively muted. This is partly explained by the moratorium on forfeiture and other restrictions on landlords’ remedies, combined with unprecedented government financial support for struggling businesses.

But rent arrears cannot be pushed down the track indefinitely. As restrictions are eased and focus turns to tackling this debt, business restructuring activity will no doubt intensify.

Temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies and reverse some winding up orders already made are a step closer following presentation of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) to the House of Commons on 20 May. The Bill will now work its way through both Houses before imminently becoming law. The Bill includes a number of substantial corporate insolvency changes, but also temporary provisions restricting action to wind up companies in light of Covid-19, on which we focus here.

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).

Whilst there is evidence that, especially in the retail market, the number of store closures and resulting empty units is at its lowest level since a peak in 2012, high profile announcements such as that of BHS mean that they are still a reality. The Court has, with this decision, provided a timely reminder of the principles of surrender by operation of law of which landlords, tenants and guarantors should be mindful.

Summary 

Introduction

We recently commented on a Scottish case involving dissolution, disclaimer and restoration (read our Law-Now here). There has now been an English case raising the same issues which on the face of it analyses the same provisions of the Companies Act 2006 (UK wide legislation) in a different way to achieve the same result.

The approach of the courts

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.