2002 was a seminal year for restructuring and insolvency professionals in the U.K. In November of that year, the eagerly anticipated Enterprise Act of 2002, which was intended to lay the statutory foundations for the “rescue culture,” received royal assent. Six months earlier, with considerably less fanfare, the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EC No. 1346/2000) (the “Regulation”) was introduced throughout the EU (except Denmark). A clear understanding of how these twin pieces of law operate is crucial when reviewing a stakeholder’s options once a company becomes distressed.

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

The claimant and defendant both lent money to a company (Y) under a credit facility. Y’s financial position deteriorated, the parties appointed investigating accountants and put Y into “workout”. Following an assignment of Y’s indebtedness to the claimant to the defendant’s subsidiary, the claimant brought proceedings against the defendant for breach of an anti-claim clause in the assignment.

The bankrupt’s trustee applied for a possession order of his home. The bankrupt unsuccessfully appealed his bankruptcy, the order in litigation that had led to his bankruptcy and the possession order, but he refused throughout to give up possession and applied for a committal order. The court found the bankrupt in contempt of court for failing to give possession and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.

Although this case is about a trustee in bankruptcy’s fight to realise his interest in a property by virtue of a debtor’s bankruptcy, the facts (though extreme) are not untypical of a finance company’s position when a hirer refuses to return goods to it despite the fact the court has ordered the hirer to do so.

In this case Mr Canty was made bankrupt in relation to a relatively small debt and he never accepted the position. There followed a number of appeals and challenges over the following years in which he attempted to reopen and relitigate earlier proceedings.

How to get out of a guarantee

There are not many legal cases which are claimed to have a potential financial impact of £38bn across the property industry, or to represent ‘Armageddon’, but both these claims were made in relation to Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007]. While that may have been a little over the top, it is not hard to see the reasons for alarm.

ARMAGEDDON?

In Whirlpool Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al. (In re hhgregg, Inc.), No. 18-3363 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA“) created a federal priority rule rendering a secured lender’s first-priority, floating liens on inventory superior to the reclamation claims of a trade vendor. The facts in the case are typical, and the holding does not mark a demonstrative shift in common practice.

Facts

The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA“) is in effect as of yesterday, February 19, 2020. The SBRA was enacted to provide smaller business debtors with a more streamlined path to restructuring their debts. Below are some highlights of the new law.

Absolute-Priority Rule

In recent weeks, a number of transactions have come across our desks involving levered feeders set up as an investment vehicle for insurance-related investors. For regulatory reasons, these vehicles are established such that each such investor’s commitment is comprised of both a loan commitment (the “Debt Commitment”) and an equity commitment (the “Equity Commitment”). This structure presents a challenge for lenders trying to balance the requested borrowing base treatment for investor commitments of this type against the potential bankruptcy implications that this structure poses.

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.