The first tentative steps are now being taken to ease the lockdown restrictions imposed on the nation as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and thoughts are turning to how we can return to “normal”. The construction sector is no exception but finds itself in a slightly different position to many businesses as sites were never required to close (provided that work could carry on “safely”). Nevertheless the impact of COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on the finances of the construction sector and the viability of current and future projects.

We’ve reported here and here on the January 2019 bankruptcy filing by Pacific Gas and Electric (“PG&E”), which was primarily the result of potential liability stemming from catastrophic California wildfires.

On 20 May 2020, the Government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament. The Bill is a much awaited development following the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s statement on 28 March 2020 announcing key measures to help businesses address the challenges resulting from the impact of coronavirus.

Financial services firms subject to special insolvency regimes supervised by the FCA, PRA, and other financial services regulators have been largely excluded by the Bill.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

Courts reviewing a bankruptcy court’s decision to approve a chapter 11 reorganization plan over the objections of an interested party must consider not only the merits, but also (if implementation of the plan was not stayed) potential injury to the reliance interests of other parties relying on the plan. These issues are confronted in Drivetrain, LLC v. Kozel (In re Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas), 2020 WL 2121449 (10th Cir.

A recent decision, In re: Grandparents.com, Inc.., et al., Debtors. Joshua Rizack, as Liquidating Tr., Plaintiff, v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, Defendant, Additional Party Names: Grand Card LLC, provides insight on the intersection between and among contract, tort, and fraudulent transfer theories of recovery.

Changes in culture and technology have been reshaping the way Americans acquire and consume goods and services for a generation. Indeed, long before the coronavirus, insolvency professionals and industry experts understood that the retail landscape was experiencing a dramatic transformation. Reduced foot traffic, online competition from Amazon and others, and changing shopping patterns all combined to place enormous strain on traditional retailers.

COVID-19 is taking an alarming and unfortunate toll on our country’s population. Each day, we collectively face daunting health risks, and the economic cost to individuals and businesses alike has already been, and will continue to be, staggering. Accordingly, more than at any point in the past decade, both debtors and creditors should consider the potential benefits of the bankruptcy process. This post discusses four basic bankruptcy concepts that always merit consideration, especially in these trying times.

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.

Fraser Turner Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1290

The Court of Appeal has upheld a decision striking out claims against administrators which alleged that they owed a duty to a specific creditor and were guilty of misfeasance.

Fraser Turner Limited (FT) was party to an agreement (“Royalty Agreement”) with London Mining plc (“LM”) and London Mining Company Ltd (“LMCL”) which provided for FT to receive a royalty in respect of iron ore produced at the Marampa mine. LMCL was a wholly owned subsidiary of LM.