In 2016, the High Court determined that a person may propose to do something without having a settled intention to do it and dismissed an application for an order removing a fourth notice of intention from the court file. At the time the fourth notice was filed, the director only intended to appoint administrators if a CVA proposal was rejected by creditors.
Distressed transactions in bankruptcy court have become big business. Sales under Section 363 of the bankruptcy code provide predictability and reliability (in the form of a court order delivering “free and clear” assets) under even the most turbulent of circumstances. Commonly known simply as “363 sales,” these transactions can provide an opportunistic purchaser with significant upside under the right circumstances. But the truly opportunistic buyer will need to buckle up and be prepared to move with lightning speed in a highly competitive and transparent forum.
This article looks at how to deal with bankrupt Claimants and the effect that their bankruptcy has on both pre and post litigated claims, where the Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) may continue to pursue the claim. We have focused on the law surrounding bankruptcy including what types of claim remain vested in a Claimant as well as how to deal with such a claim and issues that may arise.
Though bankruptcy filings are down in 2021, the expiration of the Paycheck Protection Program and reopening of the courts nationwide could lead to a rise in bankruptcy filings with many businesses still struggling to cope with the economic and supply chain aftereffects of the pandemic and consumer purchasing habits. These bankruptcies, in turn, will have an inevitable ripple effect on creditors and other claimants, whose abilities to collect on claims and exercise rights, are significantly restricted by the automatic stay.
On June 10, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an amended complaint for civil money penalties and other relief under Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” and Section 521 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) prohibiting the use of fraudulent statements to obtain consumer information.
On June 17, 2021, President Biden signed Senate Bill 475 into law, making “Juneteenth” a federal holiday. Because June 19th (tomorrow) falls on a Saturday this year, the day will be observed by federal government offices on June 18, 2021 (today).
This new law, revising the list of federal holidays in the U.S. Code, will affect consumer credit lenders’ operations. It is important for lenders to review their processes to determine how this new holiday will impact their operations.
This article deals with the effect on claims, both pre-litigation and post, which are driven by Credit Hire Organisations (CHOs) who are insolvent or begin an insolvency process. We have focused on practical considerations to identify such claims as well as what you will need to bear in mind when handling credit hire claims where the CHO is insolvent.
Background
There are three main strands: -
Landlords have become used to the concept of the retail CVA over the past few years, but the new post COVID-19 breed of CVAs has been pushing the boundaries as never before. Further, a new restructuring option – described by some as a “CVA on steroids” – is now available to tenants courtesy of the recently enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act: the s26A Restructuring Plan. Restructuring Plans enable companies, with the sanction of the Court, to impose new terms on creditors even in circumstances where not all classes of creditor have approved the plan.
The economic uncertainty for companies caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has placed a heavy burden on directors. That burden of responsibility is set to become even heavier as the temporary measures introduced in 2020 to support companies during the pandemic come to an end. Small and medium sized enterprises (“SMEs”) and those businesses operating in the travel, hospitality, leisure and manufacturing industries have been impacted in particular.
On September 2, 2020, the Fifth Circuit declined to void a fee award of nearly $2.3 million in favor of an employer that had prevailed on its trade secret theft claim against its former employee, because the employee willfully failed to comply with the bankruptcy court’s “extremely explicit” order regarding his objections to the award.
Background