An interview with Mark Byers, Partner and Head of Strategic Relationships, Grant Thornton
What insolvency trends were you seeing before the pandemic?
As the measures in the UK designed to protect businesses from insolvency draw to an end, what guidance can be taken from Australia where similar measures ended a few months ago?
Given the global pandemic, it's somewhat unsurprising that the UK's loss of access to the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EUIR) has received relatively little press.
After all, what with the state support of furlough and loan schemes along with the temporary suspension of winding up petitions and wrongful trading rules, as well as the ban on landlords evicting commercial tenants formal insolvencies in the UK have "just dried up" says HFW fraud and insolvency co-head Rick Brown.
What were the main insolvency and restructuring trends you were seeing pre-pandemic?
Few things go together as naturally as fraud and insolvency. The pattern is now well rehearsed: scams pile up unnoticed while money flows in the good times, but when recession hits, increased scrutiny from lenders, counterparties and the tax man – not to mention insolvency practitioners – means fraud is far more likely to be discovered.
The UK’s new “restructuring plan” was enacted in June 2020.1 This highly-anticipated regime introduced (for the first time into English law) a tongue twisting “cross-class cram down” (CCCD) mechanism by which a restructuring plan can (at the court’s discretion) be imposed on an entire class of dissenting creditors or members.
Until recently, only two companies had successfully used the restructuring plan regime.2 In both instances, CCCD was not considered as the required voting thresholds (i.e. 75%) were met.
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.