ABSTRACT
Bail-outs by way of loan have a similar effect (on the debtor: plainly, the cost of delivering relief is allocated differently as between a bail-out and a bail-in) in that they enable the debtor to meet current fixed costs through borrowing, in effect swapping shorter-term liabilities with a longer-term liability. The authors acknowledge the support of the Oxford Law Faculty in funding the Conference "Corporate Restructuring Laws Under Stress" (St Hugh's College, Oxford, 10 October 2022) at which the papers in this special issue were first presented, and the support of the Covid-19 Research Response Fund at Oxford University, which provided funding for the wider project of which the Conference formed one part. Most authors, however, express some concerns in relation to Covid-19 bail-out design, and in particular query whether some bail-outs may have been too generous. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of European Business Organization Law Review is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)
ABSTRACT
Economic shocks create insolvency law-making space, generating opportunities for legal reform that may be absent in good times. Policymakers may suddenly acquire a mandate to resource institutions or drive through a change in the law where in good times such reforms were likely to be foiled by interest group capture, or simply unlikely to get sufficient political traction. A crisis, then, is an opportunity for the well-prepared insolvency policymaker. Insolvency rule-making in crisis conditions is, however, plainly also risky. Making best use of the opportunity implies making more than temporary changes to the regime. But design choices made mid-crisis will almost inevitably be influenced by the features of the crisis itself, generating a risk that the result of the reform effort will be distorted law, ill-suited to the achievement of the lawmaker's objectives in the long run. This paper considers the permanent restructuring law reforms enacted in the UK during the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. At first glance, these reforms appear to exemplify the case of the well-prepared policymaker, poised to drive through carefully planned changes to the law when the opportunity arises. On closer inspection, however, a different picture emerges. The permanent measures, which were enacted in a fast-track legislative process, departed from the Government's pre-pandemic plan in material and undesirable ways. In some cases, these deviations mean that the original objective has not been achieved at all;in others, the objective has been at least partially achieved, but at unnecessary cost. Overall, the UK experience appears to better exemplify the risks of attempting insolvency law reform in a crisis, than the opportunities that a crisis affords to an insolvency policymaker. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of European Business Organization Law Review is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)