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.

There were big changes in 2020 in the world of restructuring and insolvency legislation with the introduction of two new restructuring tools: the Moratorium and the Restructuring Plan, as well as the reintroduction of Crown preference.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic together with Brexit have meant many commercial relationships have had to stop or risk having to do so in the future. Are you ready to deal with what happens if any of your key contracts terminate?

No contract is 100% ‘Brexit-proof’. The current uncertainty about whether there will or won’t be a trade deal with the EU makes it unclear what contracts will be profitable and which won’t in 2021. For many businesses, some of their contractual relationships may well become untenable in the period after 11pm on 31 December 2020.

New legislation has come into effect which extends the applicability of certain temporary provisions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”). But what does this mean for businesses?

In several ways, businesses can continue to make use of the breathing space provisions brought in by CIGA to support their day-to-day work in keeping their companies afloat during the pandemic.

The Judge in the Sunbird scheme of arrangement sanction hearing has declined to sanction the scheme due to the “paucity of information” provided by the company to the creditors ahead of the creditor vote.

The Judge criticised the company’s general approach to the way in which it engaged with creditors, particularly those whom the directors felt would be obstructive to the scheme’s progress. In general terms, the Judge commented on the practice of lock-up agreements and highlighted concerns with the payment of lock-up fees.

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.

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.

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.