In Chandos Construction v Deloitte Restructuring, the Supreme Court clarified one aspect of bankruptcy law – the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule – while leaving an unsettled area of contract law – the penalty doctrine – to be resolved for another day. Here, we consider the implications of the newly-clarified anti-deprivation rule as it applies to the construction industry.
Background
The enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (the Act) introduces three permanent reforms to the existing insolvency legislation and certain temporary measures designed to address the immediate impact of COVID-19 on UK businesses. Among other things, the Act looks to maximise the potential for struggling companies to be maintained as a going concern. As market participants and the courts get to grips with the new legislation, it is clear that there will be some impact on the special situations landscape and the business of stressed and distressed investment.
Permanent Reforms
Moratorium: a new stand-alone moratorium to provide businesses with an initial 20-business-day stay from creditor action.
The governmental restrictions and social customs implemented to combat the spread of COVID-19 have led to significant fallout throughout the economy. Many companies, particularly those with significant retail, hospitality, and personal services operations, may become insolvent and may have to consider their options for avoiding bankruptcy. Creditors looking to recover from insolvent companies may find their claims subject to a debtor’s reorganization proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c-36 (“CCAA“).
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that a state court’s finding of “willful and malicious injury” in connection with the misappropriation of trade secrets entitled the plaintiff, in the defendant’s subsequent bankruptcy proceeding, to summary judgment of nondischargeability on collateral estoppel grounds. In re Hill, Case No. 19-5861 (6th Cir. May 4, 2020) (Donald, J.).
“Bankruptcy is about financial death and financial rebirth. Bankruptcy is the great American story rewritten. We’re a nation of debtors.” -Elizabeth Warren
Amid the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and related economic turmoil, bankruptcy filings in the United States are on the rise. Non-US insurers should review contractual arrangements with US insureds and brokers, and establish a plan to deal with bankruptcy filings across the United States in a consistent fashion.
The extraordinary pandemic-based financial challenges impacting hospitals, health systems and other providers as a result of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) should prompt boards to re-evaluate focus on their duty to monitor the organization’s financial condition. Existing case law provides useful direction on the scope of these duties, particularly during periods of financial distress. There is value to enhancing the engagement of the board’s finance (or similar) committee on solvency matters during this period of crisis.
Der Gesetzesentwurf sieht Regelungen zu Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht, Zahlungsverboten, neuen Darlehen und Sicherheiten sowie zur Insolvenzanfechtbarkeit vor:
1. Insolvenzantragspflicht
The draft bill provides regulations regarding the suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency, payment prohibitions for management, new loans and securities, as well as claw-back risks:
1. Obligation to File for Insolvency
According to the ministry, the draft bill has been prepared, and a first reading in the Bundestag is scheduled for March 25, 2020. It is expected that the law will come into force this month. According to the aforementioned press release, the temporary suspension of the obligation to file for insolvency will be subject to the following conditions: