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
The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).
The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.
Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.
The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.