On 13 January 2020, the High Court sanctioned the restructuring plans proposed by three UK companies in the DeepOcean group, under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006.

After a year in which numerous businesses have relied on various forms of government support to stay afloat, many will be hoping that 2021 offers the chance to emerge from this period and resume some degree of normal trading. Certainly, the coming year will be make-or-break time for those businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic – and as government assistance is wound back, the demand for working capital funding is likely to be high.

With over a third of hospitality businesses currently at moderate to severe risk of insolvency (according to the most recent ONS survey), many in the sector are urgently considering the best way forward. One strategy, which we have recently seen a number of casual dining businesses like Carluccios and Gourmet Burger Kitchen deploy, is a ‘prepack’ administration. However, although the deals involving household names may grab the headlines, pre-packs are also widely used by small and micro businesses.

On 8 October the Insolvency Service published a report on pre-pack sales in administrations, together with draft regulations imposing a mandatory referral to independent scrutiny in the case of pre-packaged sales to connected parties.

This article, written by Tim Carter and Helen Martin, considers the background to the proposed regulations, their content and their potential impact.

Background

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

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.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

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.