What options does a creditor have when they are frustrated with how a debtor is conducting its chapter 11 bankruptcy case? In In re PWM Property Management LLC, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion by creditors and interest holders to file a proposed plan of reorganization as an exhibit to their opposition to the debtors’ motion to extend the exclusivity period. The PWM Property Management decision serves as an important reminder of the strict limits on who can file and solicit a plan of reorganization and when filing of a plan is appropriate.

Pursuant to the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (COVID-19) Act 2020 (the COVID Act), “exceptional provision” to the operation of certain parts of the Companies Act 2014 (the Act) was made for a specific period of time, which period could be extended by order of the Government (the Interim Period). Yesterday, the government announced that it was extending the Interim Period until 31 December 2022.

In the case of Caversham Finance Limited (in administration) [2022] EWHC 789, the court considered whether errors in a notice to creditors seeking consent to extend an administration made the extension invalid. This case is important as it shows the court’s approach to omission of prescribed information in notices to creditors.

Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (“Smile”), a Mauritian company, has recently had its second restructuring plan sanctioned by the High Court in England. The case contains some important markers for those involved in restructuring plans, particularly those plans which involve international elements or which seek to prevent out-of-the-money creditors from voting on the plan.

Background

A Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteményében közzétett Gfv.VII.30.365/2020/5. számú határozatában a Kúria arra a következtetésre jutott, hogy az adós és a hitelező közötti szerződés felszámoló általi, Cstv. 47. § (1) bekezdés szerinti felmondása nem jogellenes, ebből következően az adóssal szemben a szerződés alapján a felmondás tényére tekintettel kártérítési igény nem érvényesíthető. A kártérítési felelősség megállapítására ugyanis jogellenes magatartás hiányában nem kerülhet sor.

On 5 April 2022, the UK government published the first review of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the Rules) (the Report). It is evident from the Report that many respondents took the opportunity to raise issues faced in practice, not just with the Rules, but with the operation of the insolvency legislation in general.

It has almost been 12 months since the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 came into force on 30 April 2021. The regulations require an administrator to obtain creditor approval or a report from an independent evaluator in advance of completing a “substantial disposal” of the company’s property to a connected party within the first eight weeks of the administration.

In its unanimous decision, Ernst & Young Inc. v. Aquino, the Ontario Court of Appeal modified the common law doctrine of corporate attribution in the bankruptcy and insolvency context to uphold a decision of Ontario Superior Court’s Commercial List, which ordered a corporate officer and his associates, whom collectively orchestrated a fraudulent invoicing scheme, to repay over $30 million to company creditors pursuant to s. 96 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

Background

From today (1 April), creditors can present a winding up petition without (a) having to give 21 days to the debtor company to make proposals to pay, and (b) being owed a debt(s) of £10,000. Given that all temporary restrictions and processes have now ended, the ‘gloves are off’ when it comes to debt collection.

Although presenting a winding up petition incurs a hefty court fee, the effect (or even threat) of a winding up petition can elicit a swift payment to avoid the consequences that an outstanding petition can present to a debtor company, including

In Minor Hotel Group MEA DMCC v Dymant & Anor [2022] EWHC 340 (Ch), is the first reported High Court decision considering a contested moratorium since the new Part A1 moratorium ("moratorium") was introduced in 2020, in which the monitors successfully opposed an application by the parent company's secured creditor to remove the monitors and end the moratorium.