UPDATE ON TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

This case is within the Chestnut Portfolio acquired by the Cerberus global private investment group and has been one of its most hard fought cases, involving personal debts and security of over £12m and litigation spanning back to 2016.

Summary

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Act) received Royal Assent on 25 June 2020. The majority of its provisions commenced on 26 June 2020, with the exception of the temporary measures which have retrospective effect from 1 March 2020.

1. TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

WHAT HAS CHANGED?

The Act outlines certain insolvency law reforms in response to the COVID-19 crisis, including a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions for company directors. The suspension applies retrospectively from 1 March 2020 until 30 September 2020, and aims to encourage directors to continue to trade during the pandemic.

This change will not affect the directors’ duties regime. Directors must continue to comply with their duties, in particular those owed to the company's creditors where the company is, or is likely to be, insolvent.

On 28 March 2020, the Government proposed certain insolvency law reforms in response to the COVID-19 crisis, including a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions for company directors.

The measures are intended to apply retrospectively from 1 March 2020 for three months, and aim to encourage directors to continue to trade during the pandemic.

Last week, the Government announced a number of measures to provide financial support to businesses struggling with the impact of COVID-19, including two new Government-backed funding schemes.

Addleshaw Goddard is monitoring those measures closely, with our latest updates found here.

Notwithstanding, it is inevitable that we will see more companies collapse over the coming months, as they struggle to cope with the indefinite business disruption.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)