The UK Government has announced changes to the regime for winding-up petitions. With effect from 1 October 2021, some of the protections currently afforded to businesses against aggressive debt recovery action are being phased out.

The changes are intended to avoid a 'cliff edge' for debtor companies when the current measures lapse at the end of September 2021, and have a tapering effect to avoid the flood of winding-up petitions that might otherwise be expected.

What are the current restrictions (in place until 30 September 2021)?

Earlier this month – citing the “virtually unflagging obligation” of an Article III appellate court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction – the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decried the pervasive overreliance by district courts on the doctrine “equitable mootness” to duck appeals of confirmation orders.[1]

The Federal Labour Court (Bundesarbeitsgericht – BAG) has ruled on 18 May 2021 (docket number 3 AZR 317/20) that in the case of the PSV’s assertion of claims against the insolvency administrator of an insolvent company, it is not the balance sheet interest rate used for the calculation of the pension provisions that is applicable, but the standard statutory interest rate according to section 246 German Civil Code (BGB). Only this interest rate is decisive for the calculation of the amount of claims.

Facts / Background:

Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.

Challenges in bricks-and-mortar retail are not new. However, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many key consumer trends away from the high street, forcing acute (and potentially permanent) reductions in footfall as well as widespread store closures. To date in 2021, the number of stores in the UK is reported to have fallen by almost 10,000.

A key goal of the Bankruptcy Code is to prevent corporate insiders from profiting from their employer’s misfortune. Section 503(c) of the Code makes clear: “there shall neither be allowed, nor paid... a transfer made to, or an obligation incurred for the benefit of, an insider of the debtor for the purpose of inducing such person to remain with the debtor's business” absent certain court-approved circumstances.

Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.

The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.

Amicus Finance PLC

After a somewhat stop/start convening hearing concluded earlier this month, Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) was the first company given the opportunity to convene creditor meetings for a restructuring plan whilst in administration.

A recent case before bankruptcy judge Karen B. Owens of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Dura Auto. Sys., LLC, No. 19-12378 (KBO), 2021 WL 2456944 (Bankr. D. Del. June 16, 2021), provides a cautionary reminder that the Third Circuit does not recognize the doctrine of implied assumption (i.e., assumptions implied through a course of conduct as opposed to those that are assumed pursuant to a motion and court order).