In a notable decision interpreting the March 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama held that Chapter 13 debtors behind on their payments before March 2020 may seek modification of their plan if they suffered from COVID-19 related financial distress.
Translating to “now for then,” nunc pro tunc orders grant backdated relief. Such orders are common in bankruptcy cases. For instance, bankruptcy courts often enter orders retroactively approving retention of professionals, and in certain cases even granting retroactive relief from the automatic stay.
Recent insolvency law reforms in the UK, Singapore and Australia impact upon the ability of a party to a construction contract to terminate it due to the other party's insolvency.
Background
Your former employee sues you, but your employee-plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. You diligently research the bankruptcy filings and discover the employee did not disclose the lawsuit against you in those filings, which are sworn to under oath. You might have a winner to get out of the case, right? Well, it is not quite that simple, according to a recent ruling in Georgia.
The Federal Government has announced its largest insolvency reform package in over 30 years, which includes a simplified formal debt restructuring process for eligible small businesses.
The centerpiece of the reforms is the adoption of a US-style "debtor in possession" restructuring model, which closely mirrors the recently enacted small business restructuring provisions of subchapter V of the US Bankruptcy Code.
The new UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act (CIGA), which took effect in June 2020, ushers in permanent changes to the English insolvency and restructuring landscape as well as temporary, and largely retrospective, measures to help mitigate the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The three permanent additions are:
The Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the "IRDA") came into force on 30 July 2020. The consolidation of all personal and corporate insolvency and debt restructuring legislation into a single statute, along with other legislative changes, seeks to further strengthen Singapore's position as an international debt restructuring hub. This note highlights certain key changes effected by the IRDA that are relevant to loan market participants.
Restrictions on ipso facto clauses
In Re PT MNC Investama TBK [2020] SGHC 149, the Singapore High Court provided guidance as to what is sufficient for a foreign company to establish standing to avail itself to the Singapore restructuring regime. Specifically, the factors expressed in the "substantial connection" test under the IRDA1 are non-exhaustive and courts will consider other factors involving "some permanence" to permit foreign companies to restructure in Singapore.
Establishing a "substantial connection"
Recently, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. De C.V. v. North Mill Capital, LLC; Leisawitz Heller, the Third Circuit held that creditors can pursue claims of the bankruptcy estate that have been abandoned by the trustee.
Earlier this year, Chapter 11’s new Subchapter V became a part of the Bankruptcy Code when the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) became effective.