The standalone moratorium has been a seldom used restructuring tool since its introduction under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.

The shackles preventing stakeholders from putting pressure on companies will soon be firmly off as winding up petition protections and rental support end, warn Matthew Padian and Lucy Trott.

Those of us who dabble in the insolvency world keep a keen lookout for the Insolvency Service’s insolvency statistics whenever they appear.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied motions to dismiss the chapter 11 case of the newly created subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, LTL Management LLC, and granted the debtor’s motion to stay prosecution of actions asserting talc related personal injuries against its J&J affiliates and the products distributors. This is the first opinion outside the North Carolina bankruptcy court approving the use of the so-called Texas Two Step as a bankruptcy execution strategy.

The Motions to Dismiss

As we enter a new era of ‘living with Covid’, new financial woes accompany new freedoms for many. Inflation is now at a 30-year high, with income failing to keep pace with the cost of living and interest rates rising twice in the last 4 months. A number of retailers, including Next, B&M and Greggs, have warned that soaring costs cannot be fully absorbed and will lead to price rises for consumers in 2022.

So, what is going on for retailers post-pandemic? And what steps can smaller, boutique brands take to mitigate the risks to their businesses going forward?

The Insolvency Service published its latest company insolvency statistics at the end of January, reporting both on Q4 2021 as well as 2021 as a whole.

The statistics can be accessed here and we highlight some of the key takeaways below.

1. Q4 2021 Company insolvency statistics

Key Takeaways

Highlights

Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).

Background

Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background