The government has published draft regulations designed to tighten up how administration sales to connected parties will work. The hope is that this will increase creditor confidence and improve transparency in the process.

So, what are pre-pack administrations, what is wrong with them, and what is the government going to do about it?

What are pre-pack administrations?

A pre-pack administration is simply a ‘teed up’ sale of a company’s business and assets before it enters administration, which is completed immediately after administration.

New regulations deriving from the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 have extended the effective prohibition on statutory demands and winding up petitions until 31 December 2020. Tim Symes, a partner in our Insolvency and Commercial Litigation teams, looks at the implications of this for debtors and creditors.

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in a case concerning the Core VCT PLC companies (In Members Voluntary Liquidation) [2020] EWCA Civ 1207. The case concerns an order made to restore three dissolved companies after they went through a solvent liquidation process (ie no creditors still owed money), putting them back into solvent liquidation and appointing liquidators to investigate not only the affairs of the company but also the conduct of the ex-liquidators. The restoration application was made without notice to the ex-liquidators or members.

For years, small business debtors have struggled with the intricacies of Chapter 11, the debt limitations of Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidations. Stringent requirements and procedural hurdles often made restructuring a prohibitively expensive option for many small business debtors. Congress attempted to address these issues with H.R. 3311, the Small Business Reorganization Act (the “SBRA”). The SBRA, which was signed into law on August 23, 2019, creates a new subchapter, Subchapter V, of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy experts are applauding a proposed change to the Paycheck Protection Program that will allow small business debtors to access loans under federal COVID-19 relief packages, correcting what they say was a mistake in early versions of the aid program that left bankrupt companies without a valuable tool for surviving the pandemic.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

One of the most powerful tools for insolvency practitioners when investigating the affairs of an insolvent company where wrongdoing is suspected is section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA 1986”). This confers power on English courts to order certain categories of parties to produce documents and an account of dealings relating to companies being wound up in the UK.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dealt a blow to debtors seeking Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). In a decision entered on Monday, June 22, Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Jovita Carranza (In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation) that could have long-lasting ramifications for many debtors, both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit.

The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (CIG Bill) is not yet law but has already been considered and, in effect, applied in a recent High Court judgment. Marc Jones, a partner in our Commercial Litigation and Fraud teams, looks at the facts.

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.