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.
As part of its COVID-19 economic response package, the Federal Government recently introduced a temporary ‘safe harbour’ for directors from personal liability for a company’s insolvent trading, which will apply for a period of six months from 25 March 2020.
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".
If ever there were times challenging enough for boards to be considering the financial lifeline that is safe harbour from insolvent trading, these are they.
On a daily basis we are reading news of businesses having to shut down and lay off employees and seeing footage of lengthy Centrelink queues. Boards are working harder than ever to govern their organisations in incredibly uncertain times.
As part of the its efforts to stem the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Australian economy, the Federal Government has recently introduced a number of ‘safety net’ provisions designed to avoid financially distressed individuals and companies being forced into, respectively, bankruptcy and liquidation.
The objective is to allow them to continue trading where possible.
The reforms
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.