Last February, we blogged about the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Energy Future Holdings Corp, No. 19-1430, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947 (Feb. 18, 2020). The Third Circuit approved a process for resolving asbestos claims in which a bar date was imposed on filing the claims, but late claimants who were unaware of their asbestos claims would be allowed to have the bar date excused through Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3). (A bar date is a date set by the court by which all claims against the debtor must be filed.

This post concerns computation of time under Bankruptcy Rule 9006. The specific issue addressed is whether a bankruptcy court — when computing a filing deadline — should count a day when its clerk’s office is closed, even if the electronic filing system is available. In a recent case, a federal district judge explained why in his view the day shouldn’t be counted. Labbadia v. Martin (In re Martin), No. 3:20-cv-939, 2020 WL 5300932, (SRU) (D. Conn. Sept. 4, 2020).

“Unfair discrimination is rough justice.

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

On Friday August 7th, the NAACP filed a motion to intervene in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Purdue Pharma L.P. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors”).[1] The Motion argues that “[i]ntervention is warranted because the NAACP has an interest to ensure that the settlement allocates appropriate relief to communities of color adversely affected by the Opioid Crisis.

In an appeal of a bankruptcy court’s decision, a district court judge recently addressed the treatment of the “straddle year” for federal income tax under the Bankruptcy Code, which “does not appear to have been decided by any appellate court.” In re Affirmative Ins. Holdings Inc. United States v. Beskrone, No. 15-12136-CSS, 2020 WL 4287375, at *1 (D. Del. July 27, 2020).

In March 2020, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that provisions on wrongful trading would be suspended. The move came as part of a wider package of measures that sought to provide assistance to businesses – and their beleaguered boards – experiencing financial distress due to Covid-19.

Now set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which was passed on 26 June 2020, the provisions adapt the wrongful trading regime making directors’ liability for the “relevant period” unlikely.

Why does it matter?

On 26 June 2020 the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) came into force. The CIGA has made both permanent and short-term changes to the insolvency regime in response to the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences.

Why does it matter?

One of the permanent reforms provides that a contractual term of a contract to supply services or goods will be ineffective if:

On 4 June 2020, a draft of The Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations 2020 was provided to the Public Bill Committee. The Regulations are due to come into force on 1 December 2020.

The draft Regulations set out the debts due to HMRC that will have ‘secondary’ preferential status in insolvencies from 1 December 2020. They are debts in respect of PAYE income tax, employee NICs, construction industry scheme deductions and student loan repayments. VAT debts are to be treated in the same way, though are not covered by these draft Regulations.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act ("the Act") came into expedited effect on 26 June 2020 and is intended to maximise the chance of corporate survival and reduce the threat of personal liability on directors during this unprecedented economic crisis.

D&O insurers should be clear about one thing: this Act will not help them and in fact it could well make things worse.

The Act