Over the last 6 months, the Debt Recovery team has seen an increase in their monitoring of debtor companies and notification for proposals for striking off action. The team are actively reviewing and objecting to any such proposals with Companies House to allow their clients to continue to chase their debts.
Another case shows the perils of waiting until the final minutes to meet a court deadline. In re U-Haul, 21-bk-20140, 2021 Bankr LEXIS 3373 (Bankr. S.D. W. Va. Dec. 10, 2021).
The debtor is a well-known truck rental company. Years before the debtor filed for bankruptcy, a class action lawsuit was filed against it. The suit alleged the debtor had improperly charged certain environmental fees and sought damages totaling $53 million.
“Messrs. Woods and Wu are fraudsters,” Judge Christopher S. Sontchi declared in the opening salvo of his scathing opinion. According to the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Woods and Wu fraudulently obtained a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan on behalf of Urban Commons Queensway, LLC, which indirectly operates the Queen Mary, a cruise ship turned hotel docked near Long Beach, CA.
A federal judge recently allowed a trustee’s preferential transfer claim against a law firm to proceed but dismissed a constructivefraudulent transfer claim. The decision highlights the pleading standards and analytical framework for motions to dismiss such claims. Insys Liquidation Trust v. Urquhart(In re Insys Therapeutics Inc.), Case No. 19-11292, Adv. No. 21-50359, 21 Bankr.
In many chapter 11 cases, creditors’ committees can play a vital role in maximizing the recoveries of unsecured creditors. But the powers of creditors’ committees are circumscribed by both the Bankruptcy Code and case law.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig A. Gargotta rejected a debtor’s attempt to use “CARES Act” funds, which it did not actually qualify for, to pay creditors in its chapter 11 case.
In a recent decision, a district court reversed the decision of the bankruptcy court and clarified the independent obligation of the Bankruptcy Court to ensure that a Chapter 13 Plan satisfies the necessary requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, irrespective of the parties’ conduct. In re: BRUCE D. PERRY, Debtor. KRISTA PREUSS, Standing Chapter 13 Tr., SDNY, Appellant, v. BRUCE D. PERRY, Appellee., No. 20-CV-4617 (CS), 2021 WL 4298192 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2021)
IN THE NEWS
Government lifts (in part) the temporary insolvency measures
On 9 September 2021, the government announced that the temporary restrictions introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) which were put in place to protect companies during the pandemic are being lifted, and will be replaced from 1 October 2021 with new temporary measures, which include the introduction of a temporary revised debt limit for presenting winding up petitions.
What have we been up to?
Aside from our collective (but not wholly unexpected) disappointment that the lifting of the remaining Covid restrictions has been pushed back to 19 July, the team continue to advise on a wide range of insolvency related matters, amongst the recent highlights being:
From 1 October 2021, those restrictions will be replaced by new measures brought about under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10 Regulations 2021) (the “Regulations”).
Under the Regulations, which are to be temporary and due to last until 31 March 2022, a creditor will be able to present a winding up petition against a corporate debtor where:-
(i) The debt is for a liquidated amount, which has fallen due and is not an ‘excluded debt’ (see below) (Condition A)