An individual ceased trading his Scaffolding firm in Sunderland in December 2019 and immediately began employment with a third party; despite which the enterprising former scaffolder thought it would be a good idea in May 2020 to apply for a £50,000 bounce back loan from HM Government in respect of his previous business. Unsurprisingly, the funds were not applied to the Scaffolding business (which had ceased trading) and instead were used to repay third parties.

With Hertz emerging from a bankruptcy with a positive result for shareholders, we are reminded of the interplay between the equity markets and the bankruptcy alternative.

Some firms facing financial challenges during the pandemic were able to avoid a bankruptcy filing altogether because of their ability to raise the necessary funds through an equity offering. Hertz provides an example of a situation where the bankruptcy filing instead of wiping out the equity enhanced value.

At the recent R3 Scotland Forum[1], experts in the hospitality and leisure sector came together with the restructuring and insolvency profession to discuss the issues the sector is facing as the country emerges from lockdown. The panel discussion which was chaired by Judith Howson, Senior Manager at French Duncan and member of the R3 Scotland Committee was led by Steven Fyfe, head of the Scotland Hotels Divisions within Savills.

What is a pre-pack?

Pre-pack is the term used to describe an arrangement whereby the sale of all or part of a company’s business and/or assets is negotiated and agreed before an insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed, with the relevant documentation being signed and implemented immediately or shortly after the appointment is made.

Following the demise of receiverships, administration is the insolvency process most commonly used to achieve a pre-pack sale.

Why are pre-packs used?

If you thought the popularity of CVA's had been overshadowed by restructuring plans you might have to think again and watch what happens in the coming months. As you will know from the press there are a number of high-profile retail CVA's which are being challenged by landlords – New Look and Regis to name just two.

The recent Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies case examines how a family home is dealt with following sequestration of an individual. The sheriff's comments about the case suggest there could be room for improvement in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to make the process clearer for everyone involved.

Case background

Over the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic upended many industries. While the construction industry has largely been able to operate throughout the pandemic, albeit with increased and ever-changing restrictions on jobsites, one consequence of these disruptions may be an increase in construction-related bankruptcy filings. Already in 2021, there have been over 70 construction-related bankruptcy filings across the country. For many property owners and real estate developers, these filings create a nightmare scenario where work may slow or even stop entirely.

A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights directors’ fiduciary duty to evaluate all aspects of multi-stage transactions, including those portions to be effectuated post-closing by successor directors.

Last year, temporary changes to the bankruptcy process were brought in by the Scottish Government, to help individuals financially impacted by the pandemic. Scottish ministers have now introduced the Bankruptcy (Miscellaneous amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, to make some of those changes permanent.

The main purpose of these measures is to improve access to minimal asset process bankruptcy ( "MAP" a form of bankruptcy typically aimed at people with low income and few assets) and to reduce the cost for debtors seeking bankruptcy more widely.

Until recently, courts in the Ninth Circuit have generally followed the minority view that non-debtor releases in a bankruptcy plan are prohibited by Bankruptcy Code Section 524(e), which provides that the “discharge of a debt of the debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity on, or the property of any other entity for, such debt.” In the summer of 2020, the Ninth Circuit hinted that its prohibition against non-debtor releases was not absolute, when the court issued its decision in Blixseth v. Credit Suisse, 961 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir.