Jonathon Crook of Shoosmiths discusses the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Limited in which the Court of Appeal dismissed a public interest challenge to a scheme for the mitigation of business rates on empty property and where he acted for the successful companies.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

A new Act, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, restricts many suppliers’ rights to exit commercial agreements due to restructuring or insolvency-related causes, even where those rights are expressly set out in the contract.

Since the release of the film Titanic in 1997, debate has persisted whether Rose could have shifted over slightly to let Jack onto the driftwood after they found themselves thrown from the sinking ship into the North Atlantic. Was there space? Would they both have frozen? Who knows.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 received Royal Assent on 26 June 2020. Regulations have been introduced which give the Pension Protection Fund (the PPF) certain rights.

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.

As shopping centre owner Intu warns it could be forced to shut many of its sites if it can’t resolve its financial issues by tomorrow, 26/06/2020, our real estate and corporate restructuring and advisory experts take another look at what could happen next.

On top of the multiple challenges hitting retail and leisure landlords and occupiers arising from COVID-19, the news that Intu has had to write down the value of its shopping centre portfolio by nearly £2 billion came as further bad news.

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.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd [2020] UKSC 25 (17 June 2020) has been eagerly anticipated.

The appeal raised important questions about the compatibility of adjudication with the operation of insolvency set-off. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, deciding that a liquidator was entitled to refer an insolvent company’s claims to adjudication where there were cross-claims between the parties.

The facts

The Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill is making its way through Parliament at the moment. It introduces a number of new processes the focus of which is to assist in the rescue of companies as a going concern.

The biggest shake-up of English insolvency law for a generation

This summary is based on the provisions of the Bill as drafted at 15 June 2020. It is still subject to change before it becomes law.

New Moratorium process – basic overview 

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