In the recent Sheriff Court judgment in the case of The Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies, the Sheriff sought to clarify how a family home should be dealt with following the sequestration of an individual.

Background

The debtor was sequestrated in October 2010.

In October 2020, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (‘AiB’) applied to the Sheriff under section 40 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (now section 112 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016) to permit the sale of the debtor’s family home.

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.

This article sets out some reflections on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Limited [2020] UKSC 31 from July 2020 which clarifies the scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ rule. The first instance judgment raised some comment-worthy issues regarding the economic torts which were not the subject of any appeal.

There were big changes in 2020 in the world of restructuring and insolvency legislation with the introduction of two new restructuring tools: the Moratorium and the Restructuring Plan, as well as the reintroduction of Crown preference.

The COVID-19 pandemic together with Brexit have meant many commercial relationships have had to stop or risk having to do so in the future. Are you ready to deal with what happens if any of your key contracts terminate?

No contract is 100% ‘Brexit-proof’. The current uncertainty about whether there will or won’t be a trade deal with the EU makes it unclear what contracts will be profitable and which won’t in 2021. For many businesses, some of their contractual relationships may well become untenable in the period after 11pm on 31 December 2020.

New legislation has come into effect which extends the applicability of certain temporary provisions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”). But what does this mean for businesses?

In several ways, businesses can continue to make use of the breathing space provisions brought in by CIGA to support their day-to-day work in keeping their companies afloat during the pandemic.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”), which came into force on 26 June 2020, introduced a series of new “debtor friendly” procedures and measures to give companies the breathing space and tools required to maximize their chance of survival. The main insolvency related reforms in CIGA (which incorporates both permanent and temporary changes to the UK’s laws) include:

1. New moratorium to give companies breathing space from their creditors

2. Prohibition on termination of contracts for the supply of goods and services by reason of insolvency

The Judge in the Sunbird scheme of arrangement sanction hearing has declined to sanction the scheme due to the “paucity of information” provided by the company to the creditors ahead of the creditor vote.

The Judge criticised the company’s general approach to the way in which it engaged with creditors, particularly those whom the directors felt would be obstructive to the scheme’s progress. In general terms, the Judge commented on the practice of lock-up agreements and highlighted concerns with the payment of lock-up fees.

Jonathon Crook of Shoosmiths discusses the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Limited in which the Court of Appeal dismissed a public interest challenge to a scheme for the mitigation of business rates on empty property and where he acted for the successful companies.

A new Act, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, restricts many suppliers’ rights to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes, even where those rights are expressly set out in the contract.

Since the release of the film Titanic in 1997, debate has persisted whether Rose could have shifted over slightly to let Jack onto the driftwood after they found themselves thrown from the sinking ship into the North Atlantic. Was there space? Would they both have frozen? Who knows.