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.

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.

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

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.

Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.