An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.

Following consultation last autumn, the Government is once again changing the Regulations under s75 Pensions Act 1995.

The changes1 take effect on 6 April 2010. They are intended to facilitate corporate restructurings. They also address some minor technical issues. The Government has postponed any more fundamental rewriting of the Regulations, saying that “this is a complex area that deserves closer consideration”.

Restructurings

Following an informal consultation in late 2008, the DWP is now consulting formally about changes to the Employer Debt Regulations made under s75 Pensions Act 1995. The consultation document can be found at www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2009.

The main proposed changes are intended to facilitate corporate restructurings, but other changes are designed to address some technical problems with the Regulations.

Corporate restructurings

In a recent case1, the High Court concluded that it was right to sanction schemes of arrangement which formed part of a wider debt restructuring that excluded out-of-the-money junior creditors. In doing so, it valued the distressed companies on a going concern basis.

Background

Supply chain finance products have a well-deserved reputation of being fairly low risk propositions. The majority of facilities are uncommitted, exposures are typically short-term and many counterparties are highly rated and well capitalized.

As courts across the country deal with scaled back operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy courts in New Jersey and Delaware have issued novel orders to address the impact of the virus on certain debtors. Last month, debtors in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and CraftWorks Parent, LLC each sought and obtained court orders suspending certain case activity which, for all intents and purposes “mothballed” the cases for a certain period of time.

The economic impact of the COVID-19 coronavirus remains uncertain, but many are preparing for an up-tick in bankruptcies and, in particular, 363 transactions – sales of assets pursuant to Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code. Here are some practical steps that can help you prepare for your own 363 process and finding your stalking horse.

The below chart summarizes the modifications to certain protocol and procedures of major US Bankruptcy Courts in light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak. At the moment, the chart includes the US Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Delaware, the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Southern District of Texas. Mayer Brown will continue to monitor the situation in the days and weeks to come, and will update the chart accordingly.

BANKRUPTCY COURT

STATUS

ACCESS & ENTRY RESTRICTIONS

With a slowdown in capital markets activity and sharply decreased economic activity, the pressures on borrowers (and therefore their lenders) are only going to increase in the near term.

Last summer, my colleague C.J. Summers and I posted a report about Saccameno v. U.S. Bank National Association, a Seventh Circuit case in which we had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.