American Apparel, the struggling clothing manufacturer and retailer, found itself in chapter 11 this past November after failing to implement its turnaround plan amid a challenging retail environment. Last week, Judge Shannon in the District of Delaware approved a largely consensual sale of American Apparel’s assets to Gildan Activewear. While the hearing transcript is not yet available, several sources are reporting that, when discussing next steps in the case, Judge Shannon indicated that he is not likely to entertain a structured dismissal.

The recent successful appeal in Brooks and another (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc in liquidation) v Armstrong and another [2016] EWHC 2893 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 117 (Nov) has clarified and highlighted the complexities of bringing a wrongful trading claim and the importance of correctly quantifying losses for which directors can be made personally liable under section 214 and/or 246Z of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”).

In a recent decision in In re Packaging Systems, LLC, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that a lender that held a “super-priority” administrative expense claim under section 364(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code was still entitled to its super-priority status even after the debtor’s case converted to chapter 7.

Earlier this year it was announced that the UK’s Financial Assistance Scheme (“FAS”) would close to applications from 1 September 2016.

This does not affect pension plans that are currently progressing through the notification and qualification process or pension plans that have already qualified for assistance. However, any qualifying pension plans that have not yet started the process need to move quickly as they now have less than a month to make a notification to the FAS.

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.

We discussed the announcement that Bulb Energy Ltd (“Bulb”) was due to be placed into special administration in our previous blog outlining how the rules for energy supply companies work, the supplier of last resort (“SoLR”) regime and what energy supply company special administration entails.

Section 1930(a)(6) of Title 28 requires the payment of quarterly fees to the United States Trustee (the “UST”) for each quarter that a bankruptcy case is open. The amount of fees is calculated based on the amount of disbursements made by the debtor during each quarter. But, are these fees payable when a trust, established by a confirmed plan, makes distributions rather than a debtor?

On Monday, Zacaroli J handed down his eagerly anticipated judgment in Lazari Properties (2) Limited (and others) v New Look Retailers Limited (and others).

The New Look landlords challenged the New Look CVA and raised a number of arguments which some believed could be the end of CVAs as we know them. In particular, the New Look landlords argued that CVAs had gone far beyond the use for which they had been intended and sought to challenge the jurisdictional basis upon which some CVAs are implemented.

The key arguments were that:

There has been a significant increase in the use of CVAs, in particular in the retail and hospitality sector over the last 12 to 24 months, largely impacting landlord creditors. Consequently, there has been an increase in landlords challenging CVAs.

Landlords (and other creditors) may apply to court to challenge a CVA on the grounds of material irregularity or unfair prejudice.

In the third (and final) of our blog series on recent CVA cases, in Rhino Enterprises Properties Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch), the High Court gave permission for misfeasance proceedings to be brought against two former joint administrators. This was despite an approved Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) containing a clause releasing the joint administrators from liability.