As shopping centre owner Intu warns it could be forced to shut many of its sites if it can’t resolve its financial issues by tomorrow, 26/06/2020, our real estate and corporate restructuring and advisory experts take another look at what could happen next.
On top of the multiple challenges hitting retail and leisure landlords and occupiers arising from COVID-19, the news that Intu has had to write down the value of its shopping centre portfolio by nearly £2 billion came as further bad news.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 (17 June 2020) has been eagerly anticipated.
The appeal raised important questions about the compatibility of adjudication with the operation of insolvency set-off. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deciding that a liquidator was entitled to refer an insolvent company’s claims to adjudication where there were cross-claims between the parties.
The facts
The Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill is making its way through Parliament at the moment. It introduces a number of new processes the focus of which is to assist in the rescue of companies as a going concern.
The biggest shake-up of English insolvency law for a generation
This summary is based on the provisions of the Bill as drafted at 15 June 2020. It is still subject to change before it becomes law.
New Moratorium process – basic overview
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.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill was recently introduced into Parliament. While the effects of some of the changes proposed are intended to be only temporary, they have potential consequences for pension schemes.
Changes of particular relevance are as follows:
- Restrictions on the use of statutory demands for winding up petitions.
- New Moratorium process
- Court approved corporate restructuring plan
The Bill received its second and third readings on 3 June 2020 and will now go to the House of Lords for consideration.
The government has published the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill which, if passed, will significantly restrict suppliers’ ability to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes.
That the current pandemic has thrown a curveball at many businesses is a given.
At the end of February, the Bank of Scotland Business Barometer reported that overall business confidence in the UK was at a net balance of 23%. Only two months later and confidence plunged to minus 29%.
The government has introduced fundamental changes to the procedures for presenting winding-up petitions and making winding-up orders in the Corporate Governance and Insolvency 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.