This note sets out the circumstances in which a creditor may successfully lift a statutory moratorium against a company in administration in England and Wales, and in Singapore.
English law
United Cannabis Corp. entered into chapter 11 several days ago in an effort to stop various patent infringement claims being lodged against it. Most bankruptcy courts have said that use of the federal bankruptcy laws by companies in the cannabis space is a no go because even if the companies are in compliance with applicable state laws, they are operating in violation of federal law. United Cannabis Corp. mostly deals in hemp based products, the production and sale of which do not violate the Controlled Substances Act.
Business Secretary Alok Sharma has announced that the government will be introducing measures to “improve the legal options for companies running into major difficulties. The overriding objective is to help UK companies, which need to undergo a financial rescue or restructuring process, to keep trading. These measures will give those firms extra time and space to weather the storm and be ready when the crisis ends”.1
The temporary amendments to the insolvency laws which are being considered include:
Read time – 2 minutes
On December 20, 2019, Judge Marvin Isgur in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) entered a memorandum opinion which held that debtors' midstream gathering agreements formed real property covenants "running with the land" under Oklahoma law - and such agreements could not be subject to rejection under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. section 365(a) (allowing a debtor-in-possession, "subject to the court's approval," to "assume or reject any executory contract.").
Withdrawal liability under ERISA can be a significant factor considered by private equity funds in making investments in portfolio companies. And it becomes an even more significant factor if the private equity fund is determined to be a member of the company’s “control group” in which case the fund (and perhaps its partners) c
In In re Fortin, 598 B.R. 689 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2019), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether a lender may enforce a mortgage despite the unenforceability of the underlying promissory note. The court held that a lender’s inability to collect on a note due to the expiration of the statute of limitation for enforcement of the note does not adversely affect enforcement of the mortgage so long as the debt remains unpaid.
We have blogged several times about mass tort plaintiffs who failed to list their tort claims in prior bankruptcy proceedings, thereby stiffing their creditors. See here, for example. Do they get away with it? Usually not. Courts have routinely sent those tort plaintiffs packing, and two different theories call for that result: (1) lack of standing, and (2) judicial estoppel.
The new EU Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks1 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26 June 2019 and entered into force on 16 July 2019. The objective of the Directive is to harmonize the laws and procedures of EU member states concerning preventive restructurings, insolvency and the discharge of debt.
1. Background
The sauvegarde filing by Camaïeu’s holding company Modacin France SAS (Holdco) has been reported in the French press as one of the first cases where a safeguard proceeding has been opened by a company’s management in order to prevent its creditors from enforcing the fiducie previously granted to them over the shares of Holdco’s subsidiary as part of a court-approved restructuring proceeding (conciliation) of the group back in 2016.