Prepackaged bankruptcies, prearranged bankruptcies, and expedited sales are available options for businesses in need of accelerated restructurings during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

While the full extent of COVID-19’s impact on the economy remains to be seen, it will likely create significant restructuring activity for companies already experiencing financial distress and otherwise healthy companies that experience distress caused by the pandemic. We have already seen an increase in Chapter 11 filings, and more will follow.

A number of UK insolvency trade association bodies and professionals are advocating for the use of what is known as a light-touch administration for companies in financial distress as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

Light Touch Administration – What Is It?

In response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, US bankruptcy courts have granted extraordinary equitable relief in some cases. As government orders enforcing stay-at-home measures have forced many businesses to shutter indefinitely, bankruptcy courts have implemented procedures to allow the ongoing—albeit virtual—administration of bankruptcy cases.

A Roll of the Dice: Mothballing Bankruptcy Cases Under 11 USC § 305(a)

With effect from 6 April, the UK government has increased the “prescribed part”—a portion of floating charge realisations that is set aside for unsecured creditors on a company’s insolvency—from £600,000 to £800,000.

Prescribed Part

The measures include temporarily suspending wrongful trading liability for directors and implementing a new restructuring plan and moratorium to provide companies with a period of time to explore rescue options during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

A bankruptcy court’s preliminary injunction was “not a final and immediately appealable order,” held the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on Dec. 10, 2019. In re Alcor Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 6716420, 4 (D. Del. Dec. 10, 2019). The court declined to “exercise [its] discretion” under 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(3) to hear the interlocutory appeal. Id., citing 16 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3926.1 (3d ed. 2017) (“There is no provision for appeal as of right from an injunction order of a bankruptcy judge to the district court.”).

A creditor’s “later-in-time reclamation demand is ‘subject to’ [a lender’s] prior rights as a secured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020. In re HHGregg, Inc., 2020 WL 628268 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020). And “[w]hen a lender insists on collateral, it expects the collateral to be worth something,” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Feb. 11, 2020, when rejecting a guarantor’s “novel reading” of his security agreement. In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 2020 WL 628542 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020).

Lender repossesses the equipment of its business borrower after it defaults on its secured loan agreement. Because borrower needs the equipment to run its business, it then files a Chapter 11 petition and promptly asks lender to return the equipment. Lender refuses because the equipment secures the defaulted loan. Depending on where the debtor sought bankruptcy relief (e.g., New York or New Jersey), lender may be subject to sanctions for holding on to the equipment. 

A bankruptcy trustee may sell “avoidance powers to a self-interested party that will abandon those claims, so long as the overall value obtained for the transfer is appropriate,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 15, 2020. Silverman v. Birdsell, 2020 WL 236777, *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2020).

A secured lender’s “mere retention of property [after a pre-bankruptcy–repossession] does not violate” the automatic stay provision [§ 362(a)(3)] of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”), held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 14, 2021. City of Chicago v. Fulton, 2021 WL 125106, *4 (Jan. 14,2021). Reversing the Seventh Circuit’s affirmance of a bankruptcy court judgment holding a secured lender in contempt for violating the automatic stay, the Court resolved “a split” in the Circuits. Id., at *2. The Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuits had agreed with the Seventh Circuit.