The COVID-19 pandemic together with Brexit have meant many commercial relationships have had to stop or risk having to do so in the future. Are you ready to deal with what happens if any of your key contracts terminate?
No contract is 100% ‘Brexit-proof’. The current uncertainty about whether there will or won’t be a trade deal with the EU makes it unclear what contracts will be profitable and which won’t in 2021. For many businesses, some of their contractual relationships may well become untenable in the period after 11pm on 31 December 2020.
The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements—through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated—was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.
New legislation has come into effect which extends the applicability of certain temporary provisions under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”). But what does this mean for businesses?
In several ways, businesses can continue to make use of the breathing space provisions brought in by CIGA to support their day-to-day work in keeping their companies afloat during the pandemic.
The past year has seen some important judgments and hearings (with judgment awaited at the time of writing) on several subjects, some of which may shape the future of UK litigation for years to come. Litigants and litigators have also spent a good part of the year getting used to a new way of conducting litigation—remotely and fully electronically. Starting with contract law, while there has been little by way of Supreme Court guidance on the subject, the lower courts continue to issue interesting judgments.
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.
The Judge in the Sunbird scheme of arrangement sanction hearing has declined to sanction the scheme due to the “paucity of information” provided by the company to the creditors ahead of the creditor vote.
The Judge criticised the company’s general approach to the way in which it engaged with creditors, particularly those whom the directors felt would be obstructive to the scheme’s progress. In general terms, the Judge commented on the practice of lock-up agreements and highlighted concerns with the payment of lock-up fees.
Financial Restructuring & Insolvency/Finance A New Restructuring Plan
16 SEPTEMBER 2020
IN THIS ISSUE:
Introduction Process for Implementing a Plan Availability of the Plan Disenfranchisement of Creditors or Members Numerosity Cross-class Cram Down Moratorium Veto Pensions Opinion
Jonathon Crook of Shoosmiths discusses the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Limited in which the Court of Appeal dismissed a public interest challenge to a scheme for the mitigation of business rates on empty property and where he acted for the successful companies.
GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS
JULY 2020/LATIN AMERICA EDITION
Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, and U.K. corporate governance and securities law since our last update in May 2020.
See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.
IN THIS ISSUE
GOVERNANCE & SECURITIES LAW FOCUS
JULY 2020/EUROPE EDITION
Below is a summary of the main developments in U.S., EU, U.K. and Italian corporate governance and securities law since our last update in April 2020.
See our page dedicated to the latest financial regulatory developments.
IN THIS ISSUE