The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied "Colorado law to resolve" the question of "who owns the federal tax refund." Id., at 2.

Throughout the current pandemic, there have been remedies available to commercial landlords in relation to unpaid rent arrears and other tenant breaches - though the introduction of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 had a significant impact on

A lender’s state law tort claims against “non-debtor third-parties for tortious interference with a contract” were “not preempted” by “federal bankruptcy law,” held the New York Court of Appeals on Nov. 24, 2020. Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky, 2020 WL 6875979, *1 (N.Y. Ct. Appeals, Nov. 24, 2020) (4-3). In a split opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of a lender’s complaint against the debtors’ non-debtor insiders. The lender will still have to prove its case at trial.

The Asserted Claims

With the news that the Arcadia Group has entered administration, suppliers of goods and services are left with a number of questions: what happens next, and can they still get paid? The answers to such issues have recently been drastically altered by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) 2020. Its impact is discussed in the eight key points considered below.

What would happen in ‘normal’ circumstances? A manageable problem

Following yesterday’s announcement that a number of the temporary measures brought in by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA) to ease pressures on companies most at risk of insolvency during the ongoing Covid-19 crisis are to be extended, we look here at some of the key questions arising under CIGA in the context of the commercial landlord and tenant relationship.

The English Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd. The key issue the case has dealt with is the scope of the reflective loss principle in English law. This might not mean much to the average person, but the decision is potentially ground-breaking for creditors of companies seeking justice. This short article explains why.

The reflective loss principle

In a decision of first impression entered on June 3, 2020, a Chicago bankruptcy court (“Court”) held that a restaurant tenant was excused from paying a significant portion of its rent under the force majeure provisions of its lease because of the governor’s executive order prohibiting in-house dining during the COVID-19 pandemic.[1] This decision is highly significant for landlords and tenants whose ability to service their clients has similarly been restricted by government orders.

At present, global businesses face huge amounts of uncertainty owing to the Covid-19 crisis that is influencing the global economy in an unprecedented manner. From contractual supply chain issues, which have led to the activation of force majeure clauses, among others, to employment issues, insurance disputes, and the real and imminent threat of insolvency of counterparties, businesses need to take quick, effective steps to avoid trouble in these difficult times.

The bankruptcy trustee of a bank holding company was not entitled to a consolidated corporate tax refund when a bank subsidiary had incurred losses generating the refund, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 26, 2020. Rodriguez v. FDIC (In re United Western Bancorp, Inc.), 2020 WL 2702425(10th Cir May 26, 2020). On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit, as directed, applied “Colorado law to resolve” the question of “who owns the federal tax refund.” Id., at *2.

Shareholders in FTSE 250 company TI Fluid Systems yesterday voted down the company’s proposal to pay a £27 million dividend. In a highly unusual move, 57 per cent of shareholders in the motor part manufacturer used their votes to block the dividend payment which had been recommended by the board just four days earlier. It followed critical media coverage of the proposal, which centred on the fact that the company was making the payment while furloughing staff and cutting workers’ pay and would have resulted in a payment of almost £15 million to US private equity firm Bain Capital.