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”).
The High Court recently extended the bankruptcy period of an Irish businessman to a total of 13 years.
The usual bankruptcy term is one year, however this can be extended in cases of non-cooperation or non-disclosure of assets with the maximum term being 15 years.
On Monday 8 November, the High Court imposed one of the longest ever disqualification periods for a company director. The Court held that this was "one of the most extreme cases of using a company for [oil] laundering", and granted an application on behalf of the liquidator of Gaboto Limited for the disqualification of the two directors for a period of fifteen years.
While examinership is a successful and internationally recognised rescue process for Irish companies, there has been a concern for some time that is out of reach of smaller businesses due to the associated costs. As part of the government’s response to the economic challenges of the pandemic, the Department of Enterprise has published a rescue process for small and micro businesses.
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.
The High Court has recently brought welcome clarity to how pensions are dealt with in the event of a bankruptcy, in the case of Lehane –v- Wealth Options and Brian O'Neill.
While the recent Brexit trade deal contains various provisions for the conduct of trade in the post-Brexit era, it does not provide clarification for new cross-border insolvency proceedings involving the United Kingdom.
However, the Withdrawal Agreement which came into force on 1 February 2020 and established the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, does provide some comfort for insolvency practitioners, but only where insolvency proceedings were opened prior to the end of the Brexit transition period.
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.
With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming large, the implications for Irish insolvency practitioners is something we will all have to consider. The insolvency landscape will most likely look very different when we all return to the office after Christmas. This is a discussion on some of the possible implications for Irish and UK insolvency practitioners post-Brexit.
Current Regime
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