A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

Last week the UK Government issued a consultation document on changing UK insolvency legislation to enable distressed companies to obtain a moratorium for up to three months, with the possibility of an extension, under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner. The moratorium would prevent all creditors, including secured creditors, from taking any enforcement action against such companies without first applying to court for permission to do so. This follows a briefing paper published by R3 last month suggesting a similar moratorium process.

On April 1, a bevy of dollar amounts set forth in the Bankruptcy Code will change. Some of these are quite important to substantive relief, and others are quite important to making sure you don’t look bad in front of the client or your favorite (least favorite?) judge. We have Section 104 of the Bankruptcy Code to thank for this malpractice-inducing enterprise, which we enjoy every three years. See 11 U.S.C. § 104 (a) (“On April 1, 1998, and at each 3-year interval ending on April 1 thereafter, each dollar amount in effect under sections . . . shall be adjusted . . . .”).

Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.

Over the summer, four appellate court decisions addressed the doctrine of equitable mootness: In re Tribune Media Co., 799 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2015); In re One2One Commc’ns, LLC, No. 13-3410, 2015 WL 4430302 (3d Cir.

On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.

There has been a relatively recent uptick in plaintiffs’ counsel filing putative class actions in multiple state and federal courts for alleged violations of a debtor’s bankruptcy discharge injunction based upon the debtor’s receipt of post-discharge mortgage-related communications. These claims assert putative class action challenges to post-discharge communications alleged to be attempts at personal collection of the discharged mortgage debt.

At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.

Creditors frustrated by cost and time delays in cross border disputes, as well as from unscrupulous delaying tactics by debtors, will have some comfort in the form of the revised EU Judgments Regulation. The revised Regulation came into force on 10 January 2015 and aims to resolve cross-border legal disputes more easily, bringing huge cost savings to creditors.

The vast majority of UK taxpayers pay what they owe in full and on time. Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs (HMRC) thinks that a persistent minority choose not to pay which provides an undeserved advantage to those who are wilfully seeking to play the system, and creates costs which are ultimately borne by the compliant majority.