The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
This update summarises the latest jurisprudence on insolvent schemes of arrangement (schemes) and restructuring plans (RPs), and provides an overview of the key themes that are emerging in this area.
Key Concepts and Notes
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
This week, the Ninth Circuit explains the ins-and-outs of property abandonment under the Bankruptcy Code, and explores the government’s privilege to withhold the identity of informants in discovery.
Many investors, including PE firms, are waiting with bated breath to see how the UK economy, currently dependent on COVID-19-related government support, will respond once that stimulus is withdrawn. An increase in UK company insolvencies is expected, creating opportunities for savvy investors to acquire businesses at bargain prices, while at the same time appearing to be white knights swooping in to save a beloved high street brand or large regional employer.
On 8 July 2021, the Payment and Electronic Money Institution Insolvency Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) will come into force in the UK and introduce a new special administration regime for insolvent payment institutions (PIs) and electronic money institutions (EMIs). The key purposes of the Regulations are to ensure that, if a PI or EMI becomes insolvent (and/or it is fair or expedient to put the institution into special administration), funds are quickly returned to customers and any shortfalls in the amounts available are minimised.
In dismissing Darty Holdings SAS’ (“Darty”) appeal in a recent decision[1], Miles J. has confirmed that an English court will look at the actual relationship between the parties involved, rather than the wider context, when considering whether those parties are connected. This will be the case even where the wider context consists of a transaction that will, immediately following the relevant transaction, sever that relationship.
Overview
On 12 May 2021, the High Court sanctioned three inter-conditional restructuring plans, under the Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006, for certain English subsidiaries of the Virgin Active group, despite major opposition of certain landlords.[1] In the landmark decision, the High Court exercised its discretion to cram-down multiple classes of dissenting landlords in each plan, compromising their claims.
Earlier in the pandemic, our team identified the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 as a growth opportunity for businesses with the vision and the resources to take advantage. One such opportunity is the chance to diversify or grow by acquiring distressed competitors, suppliers, or customers.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background