In the second of our series of articles on the much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”), which will enact various new corporate restructuring tools well as make temporary changes to insolvency law as a result of the coronavirus, we focus on the temporary changes to the law regarding the suspension of liability for directors for wrongful trading during the coronavirus pandemic.

The much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill(the “Bill”), which will enact various new corporate restructuring tools as well as the temporary changes to insolvency law that have been announced by the government since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, was finally published on Wednesday 20 May.

View our series of articles summarising the Bill:

The Government has now published the much anticipated Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the “Bill”), which will introduce various new corporate restructuring tools as well as the temporary changes to insolvency law that have been announced by the Government since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

There are a range of potential outcomes to the current Brexit negotiations. What would the impact on corporate recovery and insolvency be of a no-deal Brexit? It is important for all stakeholders, including businesses, lenders and investors to be aware of the difficulties that will arise in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Key points if no-deal Brexit happens

(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