The new Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill will introduce new provisions to protect a company from suppliers wishing to terminate supply contracts or invoking more draconian terms when the company is entering into certain insolvency procedures, a CVA, or a new restructuring plan or moratorium (as introduced by the Bill), (each an “Insolvency Procedure”).

The purpose behind the new provisions is to maximise the possibility of a company being rescued or being able to sell its business as a going concern by helping it to trade through an Insolvency Procedure.

The landlord argued that the force majeure clause did not apply at all for three primary reasons. The Bankruptcy Court rejected each of the landlord’s arguments.

Last week the UK government introduced the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill in Parliament.

The main objective of the Bill is to provide businesses with the flexibility and space needed to continue to trade during this difficult time caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. That said, the provisions around the new moratorium and the new restructuring plan proposal have been under consideration for a few years.

The Bill’s measures can be split into three categories:

Alerts and Updates

The rule becomes effective one year after it is published in the Federal Register.

On October 30, 2020, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a final rule revising Regulation F, 12 CFR part 1006, which implements the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq. (FDCPA).

Alerts and Updates

The opinion is significant for a number of reasons, not least of which is that the Bankruptcy Court held that a make-whole premium is not a claim for unmatured interest as the Court of Appeals had intimated.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

Alerts and Updates

The Third Circuit’s ruling in In re Tribune provides important insight on what it means for a plan to unfairly discriminate.

In Morning Mist Holdings Limited v. Krys (In re Fairfield Sentry Limited), Case No. 11-4376, 2013 WL 1593348 (2d Cir.

Puerto Rico is in the midst of a ­financial crisis. Over the past few years, its public debt skyrocketed while its government revenue sharply declined. In order to address its economic problems and to avoid mass public-worker layoffs and cuts in public services, the unincorporated U.S. territory issued billions of dollars in face value of municipal bonds. These bonds were readily saleable to investors in the United States due to their tax-exempt status and comparatively high yields.

In its recent decision in Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others [2017] SGHC 38, the Singapore High Court held that the security interests of lenders survived the commingling of assets, and that the assets should be divided among the secured lenders in proportion to their respective contributions.

Facts