This article explores the efficacy of the relatively new moratorium procedure introduced under the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and whether the existing domestic legislation already housed a more effective debtor-in-possession rehabilitative procedure in the form of the “light-touch” administration and if so, why it has thus far been largely overlooked.

Restructurings defy a one-size fits all approach because every deal is unique and different tools are required to solve different problems. At one end of the restructuring continuum is the so-called “amend and extend,” where the credit agreement is amended to provide incremental liquidity, extend near-term maturities, modify covenants or some combination of the foregoing. This approach is fast and cost-efficient, but limited in its impact. At the other end of the spectrum is a restructuring through chapter 11.

Navigating the Bankruptcy Code can present many traps for unsuspecting debtors, creditors, or asset buyers. The Delaware District Court recently reminded bankruptcy participants of an often overlooked pitfall involving the collision between (i) an unstayed bankruptcy sale order authorizing an asset sale free and clear of successor liability and (ii) federal labor law imposing successor liability on the buyer. See United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Buyer Alloy Steel LLC, Civ. No.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of two lower Courts in concluding that due to the conduct of a bankrupt and his insolvency, his bankruptcy should not (on an exercise of discretion) be annulled, despite concluding that the bankruptcy order should not have been made.

Khan v Singh-Sall and another [2023] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

In Svenhard’s Swedish Bakery v. United States Bakery, Bk. No. 19-15277, 2023 WL 5541420 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2023), the Ninth Circuit held that a settlement agreement that resolved an employer’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension fund was not an executory contract that could be assumed and assigned to a third-party when that employer subsequently filed for bankruptcy. The decision is instructive for multiemployer funds and employers that negotiate settlement agreements to resolve these types of liabilities.

Background

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), office-holders are given wide powers but they are subject to the control of the court. In order to allow insolvency practitioners to carry out their duties efficiently and without having constantly to look over their shoulders, this control has always been exercised with a light touch. In recent years there have been several important cases examining these issues.[1]

After the tumult of the past few years, with emergency legislation being introduced to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the last few months have felt relatively quiet in terms of new legislation. That said, there have been a number of important government publications in relation to the insolvency industry, and it appears that change is on the horizon.

Addressing an issue of first impression, the Second Circuit held recently that bankruptcy courts have inherent authority to impose non-nominal civil contempt sanctions, including per diem sanctions and attorneys’ fees, arising out of an attorney’s failure to comply with the bankruptcy court’s discovery orders.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Upon an application for an administration order the court exercised its discretion and concluded that a winding up order was more appropriate. The court was satisfied that the Respondent company was insolvent but could not see why administration would fulfil one of the statutory purposes.

Re Aartee Steel Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1701 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a case where a bankruptcy was annulled on the basis that the alleged tax liability was ill-founded and misconceived, HMRC has been ordered to bear the OR’s and the trustees’ costs of the bankruptcy.

Re Adjei [2023] EWHC 1553 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?