On December 1, 2009, numerous changes to the time periods applicable in bankruptcy cases took effect. These changes, which will impact creditors and debtors alike, are relatively straightforward but must be carefully reviewed and thoroughly understood. Time plays a critical role in the administration of bankruptcy cases, affecting the degree of notice a party is required to give before certain actions can be taken or approved by the bankruptcy court as well as deadlines for filing various documents, asserting various rights and satisfying certain statutory obligations.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the September 15 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in New York by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (LBHI) represents the single largest insolvency proceeding in US history. With assets and liabilities of more than US$639 billion, the LBHI filing dwarfs the previously largest US bankruptcies. The filing comes at a time of significant destabilization in US capital markets and has global ramifications. In an effort to keep our clients abreast of the LBHI situation, we are providing the following general update of significant events in the proceedings:

A landmark ruling has paved the way for companies to restructure without necessarily making their pension scheme ineligible for the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). Trustees in the case of L v M sought the court’s support (and that of the Pensions Regulator) for a plan to prevent the insolvency of the sponsoring employer which would result in an apportionment of the debt due to the scheme from the employers, the winding up of the scheme and would take the scheme into the PPF.

This article originally appeared on LexisNexus.com

Produced in partnership with Susan Kelly, Caroline Castle and Ben Holland of Squire Patton Boggs.

Introduction to Common Participants in the Market

The oil and gas industry is a significant contributor to the UK economy:

References:

House of Commons Library Briefing Paper: UK offshore oil and gas industry 22 March 2016

Only a month ago we were singing the praises of the CVA and calling them the saviour of the high street following the creditors’ approval of the BHS CVA. (See our earlier blog Move over Mary Portas, CVA’s are the real saviour of the High Street).

This is the first of several posts on gathering agreements in bankruptcy, covenants running with the land and rejection claims that arise when a debtor finds gathering agreements financially burdensome. As our readers know, we waited with much anticipation for theSabine ruling and wait with equal anticipation for the ruling on similar issues in QuickSilver.  Being pragmatic business lawyers we decided to blog on what parties to gathering agreements should be doing now in light of the non-binding, advisory Sabine ruling.

The trading environment for Britain’s pubs has never been tougher. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 29 pubs close every week in the UK, with pubs selling approximately a third of the number of pints that they used to sell in the late 1970s.

Owners of small business entities are frequently required to guaranty the debts of such entities.  Those business entities might later file for Chapter 11, and may be able to achieve confirmation of a plan to restructure their indebtedness.   The question then presented is whether this confirmation event affects the separate guaranty obligations of the owners?  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently explored this issue in In re: Larry

One of the changes introduced by the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (“SBEE”) which came into force on 1 October 2015 was to allow administrators and liquidators the right to assign their rights of action in respect of fraudulent trading claims, wrongful trading claims, transactions at an undervalue, preferences and extortionate credit transactions.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently denied the debtors’ attempt to assume a software license agreement while simultaneously rejecting related agreements with the same vendor. In Huron Consulting Svcs., LLC v. Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), Chief Judge Leonard P.