Wrongful Trading

On 14 May 2020, the UK Government extended the temporary suspension of wrongful trading liability until 30 June 2020.

Parts I and II in this series discussed certain of the statutory predicates of credit bidding and some considerations for structuring such a bid. Here in Part III, we will address some additional issues that a lender must take into account when deciding to credit bid its debt and some documentary considerations. As its name implies, the predominant form of consideration in a credit bid is often the lender’s debt. Lenders, however, cannot ignore another component of consideration often needed to consummate a transaction, cash.

In Part I of this three part series we noted the likelihood that credit bidding will be more prevalent in today’s unpredictable economic environment and discussed some of the statutory backdrop. Here, in Part II, we will discuss certain mechanics that are associated with making, and later consummating, a credit bid.

For many secured lenders, the concept of credit bidding in bankruptcy is generally understood yet infrequently explored in practice. In today’s extremely uncertain economic environment, third-party alternatives may not present themselves as M&A activity and acquisition financing have slowed significantly with the spread of COVID-19. As a result, credit bidding could gain momentum as lenders look for self-help alternatives to maximize their recoveries.

Landlords are often among the very first to feel the impacts of their tenant’s financial woes. In today’s unpredictable economic environment, many businesses are forced to shut their stores temporarily while the risks of COVID-19 continue to play out. Within the last few days many large and small retailers have unilaterally announced publicly that they would not be paying upcoming rent. In these unprecedented times, landlords must be aware of the risks they face in light of what is certain to be a previously unheard of level of tenant defaults.

• Committee selects legal counsel to recover debt
• Legal counsel oversees the day-to-day management of the case
• All committee expenses, including legal fees, are the responsibility of the bankruptcy estate

One of the many unfortunate realities of the current economic situation is the likelihood of a sharp uptick in bankruptcies in the oil and gas industry. As more mid-size and large businesses begin to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy you will likely hear more about unsecured creditor committees.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act of 2020 (“CARES Act”) which Congress approved last week, together with the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”) which became effective on February 19, 2020, will make Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection much more attractive for small business debtors.

In an effort to broaden his appeal to members of the left-leaning electorate, Joe Biden endorsed Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bankruptcy plan during this past weekend. Ms. Warren’s plan, a material piece of the platform from her former presidential bid, is focused on protecting struggling individual consumers by reducing bankruptcy costs, streamlining the process, and expanding debt forgiveness. Like many of her plans, Ms. Warren’s bankruptcy plan is detailed and generally includes the following proposals:

• Companies facing bankruptcy can still make smart moves
• Creditors should consider asserting liens before it’s too late
• Legal fees may be covered for some unsecured creditors

Oil prices took an historic nosedive Monday as Saudi Arabia and Russia announced plans that would flood a market already crippled by the coronavirus. How long this price war will continue is unclear but Brent and US crude have already lost half their value this year.

On April 4, 2020, the State of New York will join ranks with the vast majority of other states implementing a version of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA”). Only Maryland continues to apply the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act (the “UFCA”), a law with its origins as early as 1918. A handful of other states that did not adopt the UFCA instead retain their varied, state-specific transfer laws. The uniform legislation was first promulgated in 1984 as an amendment to the UFCA, referred to as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”).