With the economic crisis leading to the failure of many businesses, bankruptcy cases are on the rise. In many of the cases grabbing headlines, such as Lehman Brothers, Nellson Nutraceutical, New Century and SemCrude, courts have shown a willingness to appoint examiners to investigate, report on and make recommendations regarding possible issues of mismanagement, fraud or other improprieties relating to the affairs of the debtor or its former or current management.

With ever increasing numbers of corporate insolvencies, it is likely that the courts will see an increase in litigation raised by insolvency practitioners and creditors arising out of restructuring arrangements entered into by companies in an attempt to stave off insolvency.

While debt restructurings must always remain a significant part of the corporate recovery toolkit, all stakeholders must be aware of the underlying rules relating to the challengeability of transactions in the run up to insolvencies.

There are two main challengeable areas in Scots law:

Bankruptcy is a highly specialized legal practice area that can be difficult for the non-lawyer to navigate. Bankruptcy can also present many traps for the unwary. A bankruptcy or distressed financial situation will in most cases materially affect a company’s key relationships, customers, suppliers and business partners. All company decision makers need an understanding of how to react to protect their organization’s interests. Here are ten practical considerations to recognize in this distressed environment.

The Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution was tasked with recommending changes to the present constitutional arrangements for Scotland. The Commission has now reported and has proposed that the UK Insolvency Service should have responsibility for lawmaking in respect of all elements of Scottish corporate insolvency with "appropriate input from the relevant department(s) of the Scottish Government".

The Pensions Regulator recently became involved in the current controversies attaching to pre-pack arrangements.

Retiree benefits are often a central issue in bankruptcy cases. For many employers the high cost of retiree medical benefits has been a significant contributing factor to the Chapter 11 filing and a matter of ongoing concern if the debtor is to be able to successfully reorganize. Understandably, employees, retirees and unions are equally concerned about the status of retiree benefits. Their obvious interest is to attempt to prevent the erosion of benefits that had been expected to be available during retirement.

Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs") have been in the news recently for all of the right reasons. The CVA proposal advanced by JJB Sports was approved by an overwhelming majority of creditors. This has allowed the survival of JJB Sports (JJB) in its current form and allayed fears that the company would be forced into administration or liquidation with consequent job losses and further detriment to creditors.

In the Budget, the Government announced two consultation processes aimed at breathing new life into the rescue culture.

The Insolvency Service intends to consult on the desirability of super-priority status for funding to companies that are in administration or that are subject to a company voluntary arrangement. Such a super-priority would allow lenders to participate in the restructuring and recovery of such companies to a greater degree.

On April 8, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that creates an additional hurdle for companies providing single-employer pension funds when seeking to reorganize through a bankruptcy. In general, the termination of a pension plan can give rise to a per-employee termination premium (a “Termination Premium”) owed by the company terminating the plan to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), the quasi-governmental entity that insures pension plans.

Companies that engage in multiple transactions with different entities of related groups often enter into contractual netting agreements that allow the setoff of obligations between entities within the groups. The effectiveness of these agreements has been called into question by a recent decision of a bankruptcy court in Delaware, which refused to allow a party to a contractual netting agreement to offset its obligations to the debtors against obligations of the debtors under the netting agreement.