In keeping with the general theme of this 'new year', the insolvency division of the English High Court started 2021 in much the same way as it finished off 2020.

It followed up its landmark judgment in Re Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch) (Tokenhouse) with a decision in the case of Re NMUL Realisations Limited [2021] EWHC 94 (Ch) (NMUL), in ruling that failure to comply with procedural notice provisions did not invalidate the appointment of the administrators.

Avoiding a Cliff-edge of Insolvencies? Observations ferom the recent House Of Lords debate on extension of creditior restrictions

COVID PROTECTIONS EXTENDED TO GIVE BUSINESSES A LAST CHANCE TO PLAN RECOVERY. TIME TO CONSIDER A COVID-19 CVA?

If the announcements last week on the lack of downward tier revisions for many areas is the bad news, the silver lining for the struggling and affected businesses came in the reinstatement of the temporary suspension on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 March 2021.

Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVAs) are an insolvency procedure established under the Insolvency Act 1986 which allow a struggling company to reach a compromise on debts due with a sufficient majority of creditors, thereby avoiding a formal insolvency. They have primarily been used only by large high street retailers and are not often considered, particularly in Scotland, a realistic option for small and medium companies (SMEs).

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and with a new model available, we believe it is time for a rethink.

With two of the UK's biggest cinema chains announcing, within days of each other, significant curbs to their operations due to COVID-19's continued impact on the entertainment sector, our restructuring and insolvency team have looked at the particular challenges faced by these venues and some of the steps their operators and funders should consider to help keep the curtains open.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UK'S ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

“[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.