The Covid-19 crisis could plunge the UK into the worst economic depression since the 1930s, and with it will come a spate of corporate insolvencies. In this article, Marc Jones explains why the existing insolvency regime is out of tune with the current government policy of saving good businesses and what needs to change to bring it into line.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission proposed its first comprehensive overhaul of its bankruptcy rules since 1983. The recommended new rules do not substantively change anything but codify many CFTC interpretations and views developed over 40 years and refresh references to means of communication and recordkeeping practices to reflect current norms.

At the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) open meeting on April 14, the CFTC unanimously approved proposed amendments to Part 190 of its rules governing bankruptcy proceedings of commodity brokers, including futures commission merchants (FCMs) and derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs). The proposed amendments are intended to comprehensively update Part 190 to reflect current market practices. Among other revisions, the proposed amendments to Part 190 would:

Background

In the 2018 Autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced his intention to reintroduce Crown Preference with effect from 6 April 2020. Due to the attempts to prorogue Parliament and the General Election last year, the necessary legislation was not passed. However, it has now been introduced in the Finance Bill 2020, with the later start date of 1 December 2020.

Cash flow and current and future liquidity are now real concerns for many businesses during this COVID-19 pandemic. Increasingly, the attention of directors and the wider economic ecosystem is turning to consider the issues of approaching insolvency and the duties of directors.

In line with the current approach of the UK Government to support businesses, on Saturday, 28 March, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, announced that UK wrongful trading insolvency laws are to temporarily change to help give businesses and directors some "breathing space".

The last few decades have seen a steady increase in ‘non-party costs orders’. These are court orders against non-participating people or entities requiring them to pay (either fully or partially) the costs of litigation in which they are not formally involved as parties. This year has proven to be one of flux for such liabilities.

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

Associate Martin Cox considers the recent High Court decision of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd v Dornoch Ltd, in which the court declined to exercise its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPRs”) to order the pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy held by a solvent insured. The article considers the extent to which the outcome in this case is consistent with the overriding objective that courts dispose of cases justly and at proportionate cost.