Very interesting judgment yesterday from Zacaroli J in "gategroup Guarantee Limited" (with a small g) that Part 26A plans are insolvency proceedings and therefore fall outside European civil and commercial jurisdictional rules. Pre-Brexit case law tells us that Part 26 schemes are probably not insolvency proceedings and are therefore capable of falling within those rules. Zacaroli J found that the "financial difficulties" threshold conditions to Part 26A plans (which do not exist for Part 26 schemes) made a significant difference.

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.

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.

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

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

UK CORPORATE INSOLVENCY AND GOVERNANCE ACT 2020

9 JULY 2020

IN THIS ISSUE:

Permanent Insolvency Changes A New Standalone Moratorium A New Restructuring Plan Ipso Facto Termination Clauses

Temporary Insolvency Changes Modification of Wrongful Trading Liability Statutory Demands Winding Up Petitions Winding Up Orders

Further Changes

Governance Changes Company Meetings Company Filings

Final Thoughts

On June 2, 2020, Judge Donald R. Cassling of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a state executive order suspending dine-in services to address the COVID-19 pandemic (the “Executive Order”) constituted a force majeure event that partially excused performance under the applicable lease agreement. In re Hitz Restaurant Group, No. 20-B-05012, 2020 WL 2924523 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. June 2, 2020).

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BANKRUPTCY COURT HOLDS THAT EXECUTIVE ORDER BARRING RESTAURANT OPERATIONS ON-PREMISES IN LIGHT OF COVID-19 IS A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT THAT PARTIALLY EXCUSES DEBTOR RESTAURANT’S PAYMENT UNDER THE LEASE