The Bottom Line
In a decision published October 19, 2020, Judge Frank J. Bailey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts found that an Indian tribe was not subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.
This summer’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd v Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in Liquidation) [2020] UKSC 25 (“Bresco”) would have doubtless been interesting news for Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) engaged in the construction sector.
As England enters its second period of lockdown, commercial landlords are reminded that the temporary measures put in place by the UK Government earlier this year, protecting commercial tenants from eviction and the operation of CRAR and restrictions on the use of certain insolvency processes, are set to continue during the second lockdown and beyond.
The measures are intended to protect business tenants that are unable to pay their rent as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The key measures
On 17 October 2020 the coronavirus amendments1 came into effect after being signed by the President of Ukraine. The amendments temporarily change the Code on Bankruptcy Proceedings to protect Ukrainian businesses and mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
With effect from 17 October 2020, throughout the quarantine period and 90 days thereafter, the following changes will apply to the bankruptcy process:
As part of a complex series of related transactions, the debtor entered into a note purchase agreement with an investment bank. The agreement specifically disclaimed that the bank was acting as the debtor’s agent or owed the debtor any fiduciary duty. The note proceeds were to be used to pay the debtor’s shareholders to purchase their shares. The investment bank paid the proceeds directly to the shareholders. The trustee sought to avoid the payment as a fraudulent transfer.
It is common for E&P companies in chapter 11 to seek to reject burdensome midstream contracts under Bankruptcy Code § 365. Rejection has not been permitted by bankruptcy courts where such agreements create enforceable covenants running with the land (“CRWL”) because a CRWL is a real property interest of the midstream gatherer, not just a contract right. Accordingly, before a debtor can seek to reject midstream agreements, the bankruptcy court must first determine whether an enforceable CRWL exists.
Scottish landlords enjoy a preferential right of security known as “landlord’s hypothec” in respect of any unpaid rent arrears due in the event that their tenants enters administration or liquidation. The landlord's right of hypothec is unique to Scots Law and is not available to landlords in respect of properties south of the border. For reasons we will go on to discuss, the current legal framework on landlord’s hypothec is not particularly well developed and is widely criticised as being unsatisfactory.
In several recent judgments in cases centring on complex commercial and regulatory disputes, the High Court has grappled with a number of important aspects of legal professional privilege under English law. Certain of these decisions, and their implications for parties to such disputes, are highlighted below.
Litigation privilege: sole or dominant purpose