Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the order of Mr Justice Foxton dated 20 May 2020 (the ‘Order’), the Viscount of the Royal Court of Jersey (the Fifth and Tenth Respondent) has, on the request of Harbour Fund II LP (the Seventh Respondent), instructed Addleshaw Goddard to post a copy of Schedule 4 to the Order on its website.
Schedule 4 of the Order reads as follows:
CLAIM NO: CL-2017-000323
Key insolvency provisions: a practical guide to what has changed and why
TEMPORARY PROVISIONS
1. SUSPENSION OF WRONGFUL TRADING PROVISIONS
What's changed?
Included in this update: Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduced to Parliament; FRC updates guidance on corporate governance and reporting and more...
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill introduced to Parliament
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.
It has been reported that Debenhams which entered administration earlier this month for the second time will be managed as a 'light touch' administration.
In this article we look at what this actually means and whether 'light touch' administration could be a useful tool for both businesses and insolvency practitioners looking to negotiate a route through the coronavirus pandemic.
On 28 March 2020, the Government proposed certain insolvency law reforms in response to the COVID-19 crisis, including a temporary suspension of wrongful trading provisions for company directors.
The measures are intended to apply retrospectively from 1 March 2020 for three months, and aim to encourage directors to continue to trade during the pandemic.
This is the second litigation involving the furlough scheme in the insolvency context, following on from Re Carluccio's (in administration). Please refer to our note on Carluccio's for background reading on how the furlough scheme weaves into insolvency law.
Issue
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.