Alerts and Updates

The Supreme Court’s opinion is significant because it will encourage creditors to rely on written, rather than oral, statements of debtors as to both their assets and overall financial status, which are better evidence in a nondischargeability case.

In a recent decision out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, a court analyzed the effect of a setoff effectuated between two governmental units in the 90 days prior to the filing of a husband and wife’s bankruptcy case. In Hurt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Hurt), 579 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2017), the court addressed competing motions for summary judgment filed by the debtors, on the one hand, and the U.S.

HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) has issued a consultation entitled “Tax Abuse and Insolvency: A Discussion Document” on how it proposes to confront those who misuse insolvency law as a means of avoiding or evading their tax liabilities.

A recent decision of the High Court (Goel and another v Grant and another [2017] EWHC 2688 (Ch)) has provided a useful reminder that care must be taken when administrators enter into pre-contract negotiations and the risk of inadvertently entering into a binding contract before terms are finalised. It also deals with the risks of disposing of assets, even those that are difficult to value, without due process.

The Facts

An out-of-hours office appointment of an administrator, although not unusual, is not a regular occurrence in the world of insolvency. It is however, exactly what happened at 4am on Monday 2 October, as Britain’s longest surviving airline brand ‘Monarch’ entered administration. The collapse of the airline comes as a result of mounting cost pressures in an increasingly competitive market and is the third European airline insolvency in 2017, following Air Berlin and Alitalia.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding, 580 U.S. __(2017), decided on March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reverses the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.

The immediate effect of Jevic will be that practitioners may no longer structure dismissals in any manner that deviates from the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of impaired creditors.