At the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) open meeting on April 14, the CFTC unanimously approved proposed amendments to Part 190 of its rules governing bankruptcy proceedings of commodity brokers, including futures commission merchants (FCMs) and derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs). The proposed amendments are intended to comprehensively update Part 190 to reflect current market practices. Among other revisions, the proposed amendments to Part 190 would:

Background

In the 2018 Autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced his intention to reintroduce Crown Preference with effect from 6 April 2020. Due to the attempts to prorogue Parliament and the General Election last year, the necessary legislation was not passed. However, it has now been introduced in the Finance Bill 2020, with the later start date of 1 December 2020.

Cash flow and current and future liquidity are now real concerns for many businesses during this COVID-19 pandemic. Increasingly, the attention of directors and the wider economic ecosystem is turning to consider the issues of approaching insolvency and the duties of directors.

In line with the current approach of the UK Government to support businesses, on Saturday, 28 March, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, announced that UK wrongful trading insolvency laws are to temporarily change to help give businesses and directors some "breathing space".

As COVID-19 cases continue to span the globe, a significant economic impact is being felt globally. Businesses have been disrupted, cash flows have been interrupted and economies have been thrown into a huge negative shock.

In many countries across the world, governments have amended their insolvency and corporation legislation, or enacted new legislation, in order to provide temporary relief to entities in financial distress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This blog examines the impact of these measures alongside the current position in Hong Kong and Singapore.

The UK government has announced that it will introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to, among other things, give businesses greater flexibility to help them emerge intact at the end of the pandemic.

Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and Federal Rule 58 can sometimes look like this. Carolina and Khaled have a much simpler solution.

When can a Federal Court employ a federal common law rule to make its decision in the case? Justice Gorsuch answer this in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., U.S., No. 18-1269, 2/25/20.[1] The answer . . . less often than you might think.

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency incompatible? Recent Court of Appeal authority suggested that they are, but in Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC (TCC), Adam Constable QC sitting as a district judge in the high court has clarified the exceptional circumstances in which a company in liquidation can enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour.

We here at the Global Restructuring & Insolvency Developments (GRID to our friends) have been following the tuition clawback wars for a few years – the cases in which a bankruptcy trustee sues a college to return tuition that the bankrupt parent paid for their child when the parent was otherwise stiffing other creditors.