Further to our previous article, which can be found here, we consider the key issues with which the Court faced, the technical legal analysis underpinning this judgment and our view on what this may mean for energy suppliers, and the sector as a whole, looking forward.
Background - what was the application and why was it needed?
Once hailed as having the potential to add £5.7 billion to the UK economy in 2016, Northern business leaders operating in the tech space met to discuss how best to unlock the sector's growth potential. As part of CyberFest, Womble Bond Dickinson, alongside a host of tech experts and business leaders, aimed to tackle the issue head-on in an insightful roundtable.
The long, long awaited Supreme Court Judgment in the Sequana case is finally here. Firstly, for those who may have forgotten what the Supreme Court was grappling with, the issue was 'whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors is merely a real risk of, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency'.
The Insolvency Service has reported the first disqualifications under new legislation introduced to tackle the practice of directors dissolving companies in order to evade debts.
In our original article, we prefaced that Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) would likely utilize the Texas Two Step to attempt to resolve its tort liabilities related to talc powder.1 On October 12, 2021, J&J did just that. The company used Texas’s divisive merger statute to spinoff the talc liabilities into a new entity, LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”).
At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, temporary provisions were put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 ("CIGA") to allow businesses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic breathing space from the threat of winding up action. Those restrictions will expire on 30 September 2021.
In the hotly anticipated judgment of Mr Justice Zacaroli in the case of Lazari Properties 2 Limited and Ors and New Look Retailers Limited ("New Look") [2021] EWHC 1209 (Ch) New Look has successfully defended a challenge to its CVA on the grounds of jurisdiction, material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The judgment confirms once again that differential treatment of creditors does not on its own establish unfair prejudice but that it will be a matter for determination based on all the circumstances of the case.
The new pre-pack regulations have been approved by Parliament and come into force on 30 April 2021.
Pre-packs: an overview
We discussed in the March 2020 edition of the Texas Bar Journal1 the bankruptcy court ruling by Judge Craig A. Gargotta of San Antonio in In Re First River Energy LLC that oil and gas producers in Texas do not hold perfected security interests in oil and gas well proceeds, notwithstanding the Texas Legislature’s efforts to protect producers and royalty owners following the downturn in the 1980s. The Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed Judge Gargotta’s decision.
In a recent decision in the Admiralty Court before Mr Admiralty Registrar Davison, the Court considered the application of the recently enacted section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986. Whilst the conclusions reached on that provision are perhaps less surprising given its wide remit, the decision raises some interesting points for contract lawyers on the formation of contracts and the reasonableness of their terms.
Introduction – Section 233B of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Act)