GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS
JULY 2020/LATIN AMERICA EDITION
Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, and U.K. corporate governance and securities law since our last update in May 2020.
See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.
IN THIS ISSUE
GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS
JULY 2020/EUROPE EDITION
Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, U.K. and Italian corporate governance and securities law since our last update in April 2020.
See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.
IN THIS ISSUE
UK CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT 2020
9 JULY 2020
IN THIS ISSUE:
Permanent Insolvency Changes A New Standalone Moratorium A New Restructuring Plan Ipso Facto Termination Clauses
Temporary Insolvency Changes Modification of Wrongful Trading Liability Statutory Demands Winding Up Petitions Winding Up Orders
Further Changes
Governance Changes Company Meetings Company Filings
Final Thoughts
Everyone, including the least empathic in our society (aka, lawyers), knows that we should seek to uphold the golden rule and “do unto others…” with respect to family, friends, and acquaintances, but does this also apply in the corporate world? Apparently so, as a Delaware bankruptcy court just ruled that preferred shareholders with a bankruptcy-filing blocking right (also known as a “Golden Share”) must consider the effects on other shareholders and all other creditors when exercising such right.
Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.
On June 2, 2020, Judge Donald R. Cassling of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a state executive order suspending dine-in services to address the COVID-19 pandemic (the “Executive Order”) constituted a force majeure event that partially excused performance under the applicable lease agreement. In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B-05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 2, 2020).
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER BARRING RESTAURANT OPERATIONS ON-PREMISES IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 IS A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT THAT PARTIALLY EXCUSES DEBTOR RESTAURANT’S PAYMENT UNDER THE LEASE
No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.
Background
On 2 June 2020, Mr Justice Morgan handed down his judgment in the case of Re: A Company [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) in which a High Street retailer (whose identity is not disclosed) applied to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on the provisions of the yet-to-be-enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the “Bill”).
It is well established that by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy, a creditor submits itself to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and waives any right it would otherwise have to a jury trial with respect to any issue that “bears directly on the allowance of its claim.” Such a waiver normally applies in fraudulent transfer actions, since under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code the court must disallow a claim of any entity that received an avoidable transfer.