One of the main differences in insolvency law between Scotland and England & Wales relates to the challengeable transactions regime under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In both jurisdictions, transactions that are entered into before a formal insolvency process begins can be attacked if they are detrimental to the creditors of the insolvent company. However, although both systems use similar language and address similar concerns, the law in the two jurisdictions is different, most notably with different time periods and defences to a challenge.

The pandemic has created a chaotic business environment in which it is has at times been practically impossible to make any definitive plans. Lockdown measures have changed regularly, legislation has been introduced and extended and the rules for conducting business (when it is even possible to trade) have varied across the UK and have at times been criticised by those most harshly effected as being arbitrary and unscientific. All of this has often happened at very short notice.

As a result of temporary provisions that have been in place since March 2020*, during the Covid period directors have been broadly protected from the risk of personal liability for wrongful trading.  Those temporary provisions are due to end on 30 June, 2021 and as a result, the law on wrongful trading again becomes highly relevant.

After a sluggish year in 2020 for mergers and acquisitions among hospitals and health systems, 2021 has shown renewed vigor and is poised for considerable transactional activity.

In England, it is common and quite straightforward for companies and LLPs to grant all assets security by way of a debenture which includes a series of fixed charges over specified assets, an assignment of material leases, insurances and other contracts and a floating charge over assets which are not expressly subject to those fixed charges. That same approach does not work in Scotland, at least not without some adaptation.

The ability to assume or reject executory contracts is one of the primary tools used by debtors in a Chapter 11 reorganization. Where a debtor has a contract with a third party that is “executory”—meaning that ongoing performance obligations remain for both the debtor and the contract counterparty on the date of the bankruptcy filing—the debtor can choose to either assume or reject the contract under 11 USC § 365.

Subordination agreements are generally enforced in accordance with applicable non-bankruptcy law in bankruptcy cases. The decision in In re Fencepost Productions, Inc., No. 19-41542, 2021 WL 1259691 (Bankr. D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2021) recognizes limits to this rule. While the subject subordination agreements were generally enforceable, the assignment of Chapter 11 voting rights in such agreements was not.

On 20 May 2021, the UK government published a consultation paper in which it set out its proposals to revise the current regime for insolvent insurers (excluding Lloyd’s underwriters). The proposals seek to clarify and enhance aspects of the existing “write-down” power of the court under Section 377 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Most corporate bankruptcy filings result in either a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Code) or a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Code. Sometimes, however, neither option is viable and the debtor may need to seek a “structured dismissal” in accordance with Section 349 of the Code. Structured dismissals provide administratively insolvent debtors with a framework to distribute the estate’s remaining assets (without the additional cost of a Chapter 7 liquidation), wind down the estate, and obtain final dismissal of the case.

The Act provides that a payment clause will be invalid if it makes payment conditional on: