Oliver Fitzpatrick, a partner in the firm’s Business Support and Insolvency team, successfully acted for a company in resisting an application that was made against it by a petitioning creditor for permission to appeal earlier decisions made by Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Barber to (a) dismiss that petition forthwith and (b) have the petitioning creditor pay our client’s costs in dealing with the petition.

In a decision that may encourage continued sales from suppliers to distressed entities, the Eleventh Circuit in Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC1 joined the Third Circuit,2 the only other circuit to directly address the issue, in concluding that post-petition payments for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the petition date, authorized by 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(9), do not reduce a creditor's "subsequent new value" preference defense.

I. Preferences in a Nutshell

WHAT WE’VE BEEN UP TO

The team have been busy dealing with a wide range of instructions over the past few months.

Some of our recent highlights include:

A bankruptcy court’s recent decision in Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co., et al. v. Republic Bus. Credit (In re Bailey Tool & Mfg. Co.), Adv. No. 16-03025-SGJ (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2021) serves as a reminder for lenders that they should avoid certain actions when dealing with distressed borrowers. Specifically, in Bailey, a bankruptcy judge found a lender squarely at fault for its borrower’s bankruptcy and subsequent liquidation, and held the lender liable to the borrower’s bankruptcy estate for various breach of contract, tort, and bankruptcy claims.

Within the past 18 months, two bankruptcy courts have used the same factors, but reached opposite conclusions, about the characterization of two merchant cash advance funding transactions as either a “true sale” or not a “true sale” – and instead, a disguised financing. In doing so, the courts’ decisions confirm the importance of appropriate structuring to achieve true sale treatment.

Over the last 6 months, the Debt Recovery team has seen an increase in their monitoring of debtor companies and notification for proposals for striking off action. The team are actively reviewing and objecting to any such proposals with Companies House to allow their clients to continue to chase their debts.

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.

IN THE NEWS

Government lifts (in part) the temporary insolvency measures

On 9 September 2021, the government announced that the temporary restrictions introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) which were put in place to protect companies during the pandemic are being lifted, and will be replaced from 1 October 2021 with new temporary measures, which include the introduction of a temporary revised debt limit for presenting winding up petitions.

What have we been up to?

Aside from our collective (but not wholly unexpected) disappointment that the lifting of the remaining Covid restrictions has been pushed back to 19 July, the team continue to advise on a wide range of insolvency related matters, amongst the recent highlights being:

From 1 October 2021, those restrictions will be replaced by new measures brought about under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Amendment of Schedule 10 Regulations 2021) (the “Regulations”).

Under the Regulations, which are to be temporary and due to last until 31 March 2022, a creditor will be able to present a winding up petition against a corporate debtor where:-

(i) The debt is for a liquidated amount, which has fallen due and is not an ‘excluded debt’ (see below) (Condition A)