The characterisation of a charge as fixed or floating can have significant ramifications for the chargee on chargor’s insolvency. This is because the holder of a fixed charge enjoys significant advantage, in terms of the order of priority of distributions to creditors, over a floating charge holder.

The English Court has refused to sanction two separate restructuring plans proposed by Nasmyth Group Limited (Nasmyth) and The Great Annual Savings Company Ltd (GAS). Both companies sought to use Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 to “cram down” His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Whilst neither decision is the first time that Part 26A has been used in this way¹, they are the first to involve any active participation by HMRC in the sanction hearing².

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

The UK Government has announced changes to the regime for winding-up petitions. With effect from 1 October 2021, some of the protections currently afforded to businesses against aggressive debt recovery action are being phased out.

The changes are intended to avoid a 'cliff edge' for debtor companies when the current measures lapse at the end of September 2021, and have a tapering effect to avoid the flood of winding-up petitions that might otherwise be expected.

What are the current restrictions (in place until 30 September 2021)?

A week is often described as a long time in politics, and so also (it seems) with the restructuring market.

Last week, we saw significant strides forward with:

The UK Restructuring Plan took its first foray down the well-trodden path of lease restructuring over the last week. The Restructuring Plan has been used through to court sanction in five cases so far: however, none has sought to compromise landlord claims, the preferred tool for which has until now been the CVA.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

The new Part 26A Companies Act Restructuring Plan procedure, dubbed the “Super Scheme”, (summarised here) was gathering pace in the English courts since its introduction in June last year. Last week’s judgment in gategroup presents a potential speed bump in terms of its implementation as the restructuring tool of choice in European cross-border restructurings.

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?