As part of its toolkit to improve rescue opportunities for financially-distressed companies, the Government has announced that:

"Companies will be supported through a rescue process by the introduction of new rules to prevent suppliers terminating contracts solely by virtue of a company entering an insolvency process."

The right to terminate contracts on this basis is already restricted for supplies of essential utilities and IT services. However, this only affects quite a narrow range of suppliers.

Amid all the usual politics of the Government’s Budget this week, one seemingly low-key change might be of considerable interest to lenders and insolvency practitioners. The Chancellor announced that from 6 April 2020 HMRC will once again benefit from a Crown preference.

The Government has announced that it will legislate to prohibit the enforcement of certain contractual termination clauses ('ipso facto clauses').

As with other aspects of the response to recent insolvency and corporate governance consultations, this has given us pause for thought.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).

The Government has published its response and action plan following its consultation in March this year on reforming the UK’s corporate governance landscape in the context of insolvent companies.

In its original consultation, the Government put forward various proposals to deal with perceived deficiencies in the management of troubled companies that may be leading to poorer outcomes for creditors, employees and other stakeholders.

In March 2018, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) published a consultation on proposed reforms to the UK’s insolvency and corporate governance landscape. That consultation included certain significant proposals, including extending liability to the directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).

The High Court has found that two directors and one former director of a company were in breach of their duties by causing the company to implement a reorganisation and a capital reduction when they were aware there was a risk it would lose its source of income.

In addition, the statutory statement of solvency supporting the capital reduction was invalid because the director had not formed the opinion set out in it. As a result, the capital reduction and a subsequent dividend were unlawful, and the directors were liable to repay the dividend.

What happened?