HMRC clamping down on furlough fraud by companies in Danger Zone

The latest statistics show that over 11 million workers have been furloughed in the UK as part of the government's job retention scheme (that equates to 16% of the population or one in six people) and 41% of employers had staff furloughed. The scheme has so far cost the government over £40 billion and this figure will continue to rise until the end of September this year when the scheme is set to wind down.

Below are five key takeaways from our first month of Bradley’s Bankruptcy Basics:

In February 2020, just prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (Subchapter V) took effect.[1] Subchapter V amends Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to allow certain individuals and businesses with debts of less than $2,725,625 to file a streamlined Chapter 11 case with the goal to make small business bankruptcies faster and cheaper.[2]

As we cross the one-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, we reflect on the multiple amendments to the Bankruptcy Code that have been implemented to help curb the effects of various economic shutdowns and financial hardships caused by the coronavirus. These Bankruptcy Code amendments are only temporary, but Congress is considering extending them to facilitate the continued recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Below are five significant, though temporary, amendments to the Bankruptcy Code resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy provides relief only to individuals with regular income. This Chapter is most frequently used by debtors who have sufficient disposable monthly income to make some payments over time to their creditors. Chapter 13 debtors frequently have enough equity in their residence that, if they were to file for Chapter 7, the residence would likely be sold for payment to creditors.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases are most frequently filed by businesses. However, certain high-earning individuals whose debts are above the statutory debt limits to qualify for Chapter 13 can also file for Chapter 11 relief. In Chapter 11 cases, the debtor retains control of its operations as a debtor in possession (DIP) and has the benefits and duties that are held by a Chapter 7 trustee. However, if the debtor acts in bad faith or mismanages the bankruptcy estate during the course of the case, a Chapter 11 trustee may be appointed to operate the business going forward.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases are straight liquidations sought by debtors who wish to have most or all of their debts discharged. In Chapter 7 cases, the Chapter 7 trustee obtains control over the debtor’s assets and evaluates whether any equity exists that would offset the costs of selling those assets. If the bankruptcy estate will likely profit from selling the debtor’s assets, the Chapter 7 trustee will liquidate the assets and distribute the proceeds to creditors. This is called an “asset case.”

Bankruptcy cases differ from typical lawsuits in a variety of ways, including the parties involved. Whereas standard lawsuits generally involve a plaintiff and a defendant, bankruptcy cases have a different cast of “players,” including the debtor or debtor in possession, creditors, the bankruptcy trustee (i.e., Chapter 7 trustee, Chapter 13 trustee, etc.), committees, and the United States Trustee. Often, these players will retain attorneys to represent their interests in bankruptcy cases. Understanding the roles of each of these players will help you navigate the bankruptcy system.

For the past few years, the federal circuit courts have struggled with the issue of whether a creditor retaining possession of bankruptcy estate property violates the automatic stay. For example, is a creditor required to automatically turn over a vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can the creditor retain possession of the vehicle while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

What are the proposed changes to rules on transfer of ownership?

The key takeaway

The Law Commission’s proposed changes are likely to improve consumers’ odds of owning goods bought online in the event of retailer insolvency, even before they have left the retailer’s possession.

The background