I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

As we mentioned in a previous post, the COVID-19 pandemic has generated a wave of bankruptcies that we expect to continue into 2021. Companies entering 2020 in a strong financial position may now need to quickly shed distressed assets and generate cash. A Chapter 11 reorganization is likely to be too long and burdensome for companies in this position.

It has been a strange summer yet all too soon the nation is deflating paddling pools, spending the national debt of a small country in shoe shops and fervently sewing on name tapes as September and a new academic and then legal year approach. We hope many of you have managed some sort of break from home working / living at work despite all the difficulties with travel this summer. We were particularly tickled when one of our clients suggested setting an "out of spare room" autoreply on his email, rather than "out of the office".

The United Kingdom and Australia have recently implemented legislative changes to permit external administrators to assign or sell causes of action available to them.

We are frequently approached by architects looking to wind down their practices, because either (i) they want to retire, (ii) they want to close down because of economic uncertainty, or (iii) they simply do not want to carry on with their practice and they will gain little value in selling it. However, in winding down a practice, we recommend the following key issues are considered:

1. Your contractual and professional obligations as an architect to maintain professional indemnity insurance run-off cover; and

On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Opinion in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) v. Bank of America, N.A., et. al, No. 18-1079,[1] an adversary proceeding brought in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.

This article was originally published in Law360. 

Recent Hong Kong cases have highlighted varying approaches regarding the impact of arbitration clauses on insolvency proceedings, in particular, on the Court’s discretion to make a winding-up order where a debt is disputed.

Recent judgments have varied between the so-called Traditional Approach which requires the company-debtor to show a genuine dispute on substantial grounds and the Lasmos Approach which requires the company only to commence arbitration in a timely manner.

New legislation has been introduced in the UK which restricts the rights of parties to construction contracts to terminate or even suspend work. This means that even if your contract says you can terminate or suspend – for example, for non-payment – you may not in the future be able to exercise this right. These reforms are likely to lead to significant changes to how parties operate their contracts and credit lines.

This judgment provides some guidance in relation to the scope and application of s283A IA86,  which gives a bankrupt’s trustee in bankruptcy three years to take the necessary steps to realise or secure the bankrupt’s interest in the bankrupt’s home failing which that interest will cease to be part of the estate and will automatically re­vest in the bankrupt.

In this case the court was concerned with the meaning of the phrases (a) ‘an interest in’, (b) ‘a dwelling­house’ and (c) ‘sole or principal residence’ under s283A(1).