In a decision that may encourage continued sales from suppliers to distressed entities, the Eleventh Circuit in Auriga Polymers Inc. v. PMCM2, LLC1 joined the Third Circuit,2 the only other circuit to directly address the issue, in concluding that post-petition payments for the value of goods received by a debtor within 20 days before the petition date, authorized by 11 U.S.C. section 503(b)(9), do not reduce a creditor's "subsequent new value" preference defense.

I. Preferences in a Nutshell

On Friday, 29 July the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment signed into law the European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations 2022 (the "Regulations").

The court's decision in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc. clarifies the appointment standard for future claimants representatives in the Third Circuit under Section 524(g) of the US Bankruptcy Code.

In a precedential decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the appointment of James L. Patton, Jr. as the legal representative for future talc claimants (FCR) by the bankruptcy court in the Imerys Talc America chapter 11 cases.1

Summary

Restructuring Plans (“Plan(s)”) were introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (“CIGA”) as a rescue tool for companies in financial difficulty to compromise debt and other liabilities owed to secured and unsecured creditors and its members, with the court’s sanction.

Ever since the pandemic induced stress began, there has been talk of the Government introducing pre-packaged insolvency resolution processes (“pre-packs”) into the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).  Prevalent in other jurisdictions either through statutory provisions or market driven mechanisms, pre-packs aim to provide a more debtor-friendly, cost-effective and faster resolution process in situations where there may already be a broad consensus between debtor and creditors for a resolution.

Oliver Fitzpatrick, a partner in the firm’s Business Support and Insolvency team, successfully acted for a company in resisting an application that was made against it by a petitioning creditor for permission to appeal earlier decisions made by Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Barber to (a) dismiss that petition forthwith and (b) have the petitioning creditor pay our client’s costs in dealing with the petition.

Background of the Act

Introduction

When a company commences winding-up, the disposition of its property and the transfer of shares in the company is void, unless the Court otherwise orders. Under what conditions will the Court allow such disposition or transfer? This was the question in Ong Boon Chuan v Tong Guan Food Products Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 181, when the Singapore High Court was faced with an application for the sale and transfer of shares in an insolvent company ("Company").

On 1 July 2022, Legislative Decree No 83/2022 was published in the Official Gazette, which in many parts amended the Crisis and Insolvency Code (Legislative Decree No 14/2019) implementing several provisions contained in the Insolvency Directive (EU Directive 2019/1023, known as the “CIC”).

The Insolvency Service has reported the first disqualifications under new legislation introduced to tackle the practice of directors dissolving companies in order to evade debts.