Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
A “pre-pack” is a sale of all or part of a distressed company’s business or assets, negotiated before the company enters a formal insolvency process and executed by the appointed insolvency practitioner immediately after the insolvency process begins.
On Monday, the High Court handed down its decision in (1) Lazari Properties 2 Limited, (2) The Trafford Centre Limited, (3) LS Bracknell Limited and 10 Others and (4) Fort Kinnaird Nominee Limited and 20 Others v (1) New Look Retailers Limited, (2) Daniel Francis Butters and (3) Robert Scott Fishman [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch) considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the applicants in relation to the New Look CVA. Mr Justice Zacaroli rejected each of the grounds of challenge leaving the New Look CVA intact.
Despite the scale of the pandemic and resulting build-up of Covid related rent arrears, currently estimated at around £4.5bn, business restructuring has been relatively muted. This is partly explained by the moratorium on forfeiture and other restrictions on landlords’ remedies, combined with unprecedented government financial support for struggling businesses.
But rent arrears cannot be pushed down the track indefinitely. As restrictions are eased and focus turns to tackling this debt, business restructuring activity will no doubt intensify.
Introduction
On 28 March 2020, the UK Government announced upcoming insolvency law reforms in response to Covid-19, intended to help companies and directors.
On 23 April 2020, the UK Government announced further measures to protect the UK high street from aggressive rent collection by prohibiting the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions to collect rent which was unpaid due to difficulties caused by Covid-19. However, at the time, it was unclear from the announcement as to whether these prohibitions would extend beyond unpaid rent to other debts.
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.