The revised Practice Direction: Insolvency Proceedings

July 2018

The Supreme Court recently addressed two bankruptcy issues. In its opinion, the Court resolved a circuit split regarding the breadth of the safe harbor provision which protects certain transfers by financial institutions in connection with a securities contract. In Village at Lakeridge, the Court weighed in on the scope of appellate review and whether a bankruptcy court’s factual determination should be reviewed for clear error or de novo. These decisions are notable because they provide guidance on previously murky issues of bankruptcy law.

You have instructions to commence proceedings for damages for personal injury against a defendant company only to find that the company has entered in to a Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”). What procedural issues arise and what steps should be taken?

What is a CVA?

The long-awaited new Practice Direction – Insolvency Proceedings (PDIP), which came into force on 25 April 2018, has now brought procedure into line with the changes introduced by the significant amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act) introduced last year and the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), as amended. This has finally brought to an end the agonisingly long period (over 12 months) in which the provisions of the previous Practice Direction have been at odds with the Act as amended and IR 2016.

In light of the radically and rapidly changing face of bricks and mortar retail, cases providing guidance on the way in which liabilities are to be dealt with in the course of the restructuring / insolvency process are extremely valuable not only for stakeholders and practitioners dealing with the consequences of those processes but also to those guiding and devising the strategies in the first instance.

Wright and Rowley v Prudential Assurance Company Limited is one such case arising out of the collapse of the British Home Stores (‘BHS’) retailing group in 2016.

Judge Swain’s decision in the PROMESA Title III bankruptcy proceeding of the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) that a federal bankruptcy court cannot compel a municipal debtor to apply special revenues to post-petition debt service payments on special revenue bonds has generated controversy and caused some market participants to question whether, if the decision is upheld by the First Circuit on appeal, the perception that special revenue bonds have special rights in bankruptcy remains justified.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

Last week, President Trump unveiled his proposal to fix our nation’s aging infrastructure. While the proposal lauded $1.5 trillion in new spending, it only included $200 billion in federal funding. To bridge this sizable gap, the plan largely relies on public private partnerships (often referred to as P3s) that can use tax-exempt bond financing.

In the recently decided case, Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit took a hardline position that trademark license rights are not protected in bankruptcy. Bankruptcy Code section 365(n) permits a licensee to continue to use intellectual property even if the debtor rejects the license agreement.

This article was first published for Thomson Reuters' Practical Law Dispute Resolution Blog.