After a period of significant inactivity as a result of the various temporary measures introduced during the pandemic, we are now approaching an insolvency cliff edge in the UK. In this video, senior restructuring and insolvency lawyers from TLT’s Scottish, Northern Irish and English offices discuss:
Additional conditions will be imposed on administrators seeking to dispose of a company’s business or assets to a party connected to the insolvent company within 8 weeks of their appointment, for administrations beginning on or after 25 June 2021. Equivalent provisions have been in force in Great Britain since 30 April 2021.
Summary
Affected sales will be subject to either
(1) prior creditor approval or
(2) prior review by an independent evaluator.
What is it and what has changed?
Wrongful trading is a term that has received quite a bit of press over the last few months, mainly through the headlines generated by the UK Government’s unprecedented amendment to the wrongful trading provisions contained within our insolvency legislation.
But what exactly is wrongful trading and what has changed?
This is inevitably a challenging time for many company directors throughout Northern Ireland and beyond. Businesses have been faced with a quite unprecedented set of social and economic circumstances due to the Covid-19 pandemic and now, as lockdown has eased and restrictions begin to be lifted, the focus turns to how those businesses that have been most severely impacted by this crisis will evolve. Directors are no doubt busy strategising how to best ensure their company’s immediate short term stability and in time their longer term growth and prosperity.
(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)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener
Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer
The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.
Judge: Rogers
Appellant: Pro Se
Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt