The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“Bill”) is currently going through Parliament and, once approved, will introduce wide-ranging changes to the UK’s corporate insolvency regime.
The Government has put in place substantial measures that are intended to help mitigate the devastating effect of Covid-19 on the UK economy. Many businesses are now facing their toughest test in living memory. Yet even as the UK endures extraordinary lockdown measures, and with some 3.9 billion people in global isolation, directors of UK companies must continue to try and keep their businesses out of insolvency.
Following the outbreak of a global pandemic unprecedented in recent memory, the UK is now reeling from the devastating effects of the coronavirus. Small and medium-sized businesses throughout the nation will already have been forced to come to terms with this new reality, through a combination of staff illness, forced closures, supply chain disruption and loss of business.
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) |
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.
Can they claim for the debts they are owed following the recent compulsory liquidation?
With the sad news that Thomas Cook entered into compulsory liquidation on Monday 23 September 2019, understandably the headlines have focused on the impact of the failure on those holidaymakers who require either repatriation or are now being forced to make alternative holiday arrangements. But what has been the impact on staff? As a global employer of 21,000 employees what are the consequences for them of Thomas Cook’s compulsory liquidation?
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.
It is little wonder why Andrew Tinkler’s removal from the Stobart Group (and subsequent court case) attracted so much media attention:
The Great Recession of 2008 may seem a distant memory. September 15, 2018 is the 10th anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, and often seen as the point at which a garden-variety recession turned into the Great Recession, with catastrophic results severely impacting the livelihood of millions.
After a January 2018 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, trademark licensees are faced with uncertainty again. (In re Tempnology, LLC, 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)). In our previous update, we discussed a 7th Circuit case dealing with the same issue. At the time we predicted that the holding in the case may have resolved the issue. (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012)). But that was wrong.