NEW RULES ON PRE-ADMINISTRATION COSTS

Insolvency Practitioners have been eagerly awaiting the implementation on 6 April 2010 of the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2010 (“New Rules”). In addition to the many modernising changes made by the New Rules is the long awaited inclusion of what was believed to be a statutory entitlement to recover pre-appointment costs such as in negotiating a pre-pack. as an expense of the administration (New Rule 2.67(1)(h)).

An opinion issued earlier this year by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re SemCrude, L.P., et al. (Bankr. Del., No. 08-11525; January 9, 2009) may end much of the practice of so-called “triangular setoffs” by creditors in bankruptcy cases. The Court in SemCrude found that creditors violate section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code by setting off amounts among multiple debtors, even when exercising contractual assignment rights. This ruling is likely to have far-reaching impact given the dearth of case law on this fairly common contractual provision.

Two documents on winding up procedures have recently been released for consultation. The first is a joint statement by the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and the DWP in respect of the Financial Assistance Scheme on the regulation of schemes in wind up and in a PPF assessment period. The second is a set of good practice guidelines from the Pensions Regulator on avoiding delays in the winding up of schemes.

Around the globe, our lawyers are receiving a large number of enquiries about mitigating the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) on companies’ business operations and finances. Governments in several countries have reacted quickly to try to mitigate COVID-19’s impact by changing or amending their insolvency laws. This memorandum is an overview of the key changes in restructuring and insolvency laws that select countries have undertaken in response to the COVID-19 pa

With respect to the dynamic course of events regarding COVID-19 – commonly known as the coronavirus – we address the threat of insolvency and related liability of the statutory bodies (Directors) and provide a list of practical mitigating steps

Directors' Duties and Related Matters, in the Context of COVID-19

25 March 2020

Scope And Purpose of This Note

This note summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in England and Wales are subject to.

This note explains those duties, and matters that directors should consider in relation to those duties, in the context of the developing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), commonly known as the "coronavirus" or simply, COVID-19, pandemic.

We previously considered the potential implications for insolvency professionals of the rise of cryptocurrencies (available here). One of the principal issues identified was the uncertainty surrounding the legal status of cryptocurrencies; what class of asset were they and, subsequently, how would they be treated under English law?

Since the news of Thomas Cook’s demise a lot of focus has been on its travel customers. But beyond repatriating stranded holiday makers, the impact of large scale insolvencies such as Thomas Cook, Carillion and British Steel can be far reaching.

Those relying on the likes of Thomas Cook for business may also face financial distress as the impact of its insolvency ripples down the supply chain. Potentially impacting suppliers of goods and services, those who relied on Thomas Cook’s business outside of the UK, employees and landlords.

Note — This post (plus many others) arrives thanks to the hard work of Sixth Circuit Appellate Blog intern extraordinaire Barrett Block, a rising 3L at UK Law.

Brexit insolvency issues for trustees of pension schemes with overseas sponsors

You might remember that before 2016, in the world before the EU referendum (which did exist!), it was effectively not possible for the insolvency of an overseas sponsor of a UK pension scheme to trigger entry into the PPF unless the overseas sponsor had a branch or office (an “establishment”) in the UK (for legal geeks you might remember this was the issue discussed in the Olympic Airlines case which was heard by the Supreme Court in 2015).