It is unfortunately a common story for anyone who has been in business for any length of time: the unscrupulous director who, rather than confront creditors in an insolvency process, simply disappears as if by magic by dissolving the company and re-appearing elsewhere moments later, leaving creditors clasping nothing but smoke. This loophole has frustrated creditors for many years as it means their only remaining option is a commercially unattractive application to restore the company to the register in order to petition to place the company into compulsory liquidation.

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

Introduction

Bankruptcy courts often dismiss appeals of chapter 11 plans when granting the relief requested in the appeal would undermine the finality and reliability of the corresponding plans, a doctrine known as Equitable Mootness. Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review on the merits.¹

On Wednesday 24 March, the government confirmed that it will be extending the current temporary restrictions on statutory demands and winding-up petitions and the temporary suspension of directors’ liability for wrongful trading put in place under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, until 30 June 2021.

The extensions, set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021, laid before parliament on 24 March, will come into effect on 26 March 2021.

Directors of companies have been facing, and continue to face, extremely challenging circumstances due to the financial impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The decisions they have taken through the pandemic to date have been made against a backdrop of unknowns: unknown closure durations, unknown projections and uncertain futures.

On 24 February, the Government published draft regulations that, if implemented, will impose new restrictions on pre-pack administration sales to connected parties. For all `substantial disposals' (which will include `pre-pack' sales) to connected parties, taking place within eight weeks of the administrators' appointment, the administrators will either need creditor consent or a report from an independent `evaluator'.

Context

In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.

In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.

The Covid-19 pandemic has been with us now for over 12 months. At the time of writing, we are part way through the third national lockdown. The Government has indicated that schools should start reopening on 8 March 2021, but there is no indication of when non-essential retail will reopen or when the directive to work from home ‘where possible’ will be eased.