- Brexit ripped up the rules on automatic cross-border recognition of formal insolvency proceedings and restructuring tools between the UK and the EU.
- Recognition will now depend on a patchwork of domestic legislation, private international law and treaties and may lead to different outcomes depending on the jurisdiction.
- Cross-border recognition is still achievable but involves careful navigation and a more tailored approach in individual cases to selection of the most effective process and its route to recognition.
Legal landscape
The consequent distress in the market is evident with 9 supplier insolvencies in the last few weeks alone, including Avro Energy, Utility Point and People’s Energy.
Today, 1 October 2021, is important as Ofgem is due to increase tariff caps from that date. This is also the date when the restrictions on petitioning for the winding up of companies on the basis of insolvency will be eased.
Legal landscape – energy regulations
In distressed situations, there are a number of issues to navigate, including:
In an underreported amendment to the Bankruptcy Code, the Small Business Reorganization Act amended §547(b) of the Code to add an explicit requirement for the bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession to conduct “reasonable due diligence” before filing a preference action. The apparent goal of this amendment to the Bankruptcy Code is to reduce the number of frivolous preference lawsuits pursued by trustees.
There have been two recent changes to the insolvency laws in England and Wales relating to winding up petitions1 and Part 1A moratoriums.
Winding up petitions – Relaxation of restrictions
In SolarReserve CSP Holdings, LLC v. Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC, C.A. No. 78, 2021 (Del. Aug. 9, 2021), the Delaware Supreme Court recently dismissed a books-and-records appeal as moot and vacated a judgment issued by the Court of Chancery after appellee Tonopah Solar Energy, LLC (Tonopah) emerged from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding as a new limited liability company operating under a new limited liability company agreement.
On August 16, 2021, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an individual guarantor remained liable for more than $58 million in commercial debt, despite the individual’s claims that the lenders induced him to provide the guaranty under duress. See Lockwood International, Inc. v. Wells Fargo, NA, et al., Case No. 20-40324 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2021).
COVID-19 M&A Lessons
Following the landmark decision by Justice Trower in Re DeepOcean 1 UK Ltd,1 Justice Snowden delivered another important judgment on the use of cross-class cram downs as he sanctioned the Virgin Active2 restructuring plans.
On April 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.), Case No. 19-2240 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a 2017 law that substantially increased the quarterly fees debtors are required to pay to the Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”) in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.
On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.1 The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu