Introduction and points for consideration by trustees
Summary
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the Bill) has completed all of its stages in the House of Commons, without material amendment to the Bill as originally drafted. All three readings in the House of Lords are scheduled to take place in June 2020, and expectations are that the Bill will receive Royal Assent, and will be enacted, very shortly thereafter.
On 6 April 2020, the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) (Amendment) Order 2020 came into force. This order amends the Insolvency Act 1986 (Prescribed Part) Order 2003, and increases the maximum amount of the prescribed part from £600,000 to £800,000.
Prescribed Part
The “prescribed part” is the term given to a portion of funds realised from assets charged by way of floating, but not fixed, charge, where:
1 the floating charge was created on or after 15 September 2003; and
The government has responded to intense pressure from the restructuring and insolvency community by announcing measures to 'protect companies hit by COVID-19'. Insolvency law will be amended 'to give companies breathing space and keep trading while they explore options for rescue'.
RAAs are a statutory restructuring mechanism which operate by apportioning the departing employer’s share of liability between it and remaining employers. As an RAA can be entered before the insolvency process is initiated, RAAs can permit corporate restructuring in response to financial hardship without triggering the departing employer’s insolvency.
Executive Summary
In any bankruptcy, there are inevitably winners and losers. The winners do not always do virtuous acts to win and the losers are not necessarily evil. Rather, dividing up a limited pie, the bankruptcy courts must leave some creditors short-changed. A good example is the recent 7th Circuit case involving a supplier and a lender. (hhgregg, Inc. et al. (Debtor). Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, and GACP Finance Co., LLC, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-3363, February 11, 2020) |
2019 was for many a year of waiting…we waited, and waited and indeed still wait…for Brexit. That inevitably has had an impact on the property world and in particular the investment market experiencing a degree of inactivity. Somewhat ironically though Brexit has given us one of several important decisions in 2019 relevant to the Real Estate Disputes world.
Secured creditors filing a UCC financing statement under Article 9 must include a description of the collateral. (UCC 9-502) UCC Article 9 adopts a “notice filing” system, under which the purpose of the filing is to provide notice of a security interest in the specified collateral. UCC Article 9 does not require a precise (e.g., serial number) description. Even so, there has been much litigation over the sufficiency of the collateral descriptions in UCC financing statements.
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC nka Old Cold LLC, (Case No. 17-1657, U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2019) ("Tempnology"). The U.S. Supreme Court decided that a trademark licensee can continue to use a trademark license even when a bankrupt trademark licensor rejects the license agreement.