Protecting your business from exposure to supplier and customer insolvency

The risk of unforeseen counterparty customer or supplier financial distress and failure amidst the on-going challenges for businesses from COVID-19 means that pre-emptive legal and operational protections against the risk of heavy financial loss or business disruption from customer/supplier failure are more valuable than ever.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a range of changes to UK insolvency law of a magnitude not seen since the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2002. One of the reforms included in the Act is a wide ranging prohibition on the operation of termination clauses in contracts for the supply of goods and/or services where the counterparty enters a relevant insolvency process.

What do the provisions do?

Under the new provisions, suppliers will be prevented from:

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduces a range of changes to UK insolvency law of a magnitude not seen since the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2002. One of the reforms included in the Act is a wide ranging prohibition on the operation of termination clauses in contracts for the supply of goods and/or services where the counterparty enters a relevant insolvency process.

What do the provisions do?

Under the new provisions, suppliers will be prevented from:

The UK Supreme Court recently handed down judgment in Pimlico Plumbers v Smith1, the latest decision on the hot topic of employment status in the “gig economy”, following the Deliveroo and CitySprint cases in 2017. The court dismissed Pimlico's appeal, holding that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Smith, who was engaged under a contract describing him as a self-employed plumber, was in fact a worker. He may now proceed with claims of disability discrimination and for unlawful deductions and holiday pay.

Case Study: US-based unsecured creditor proactively protects its position and recoveries from the liquidation of its UK distributor

When a company enters into an insolvency process in the UK, the position of unsecured creditors is typically one of uncertainty. Ranking fifth1 in the insolvency payment waterfall, unsecured creditors frequently find themselves out of the money. Even in cases where there are sufficient realizations to make a distribution to unsecured creditors, they may receive only a minimal amount in respect of their outstanding debts.

“[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.