In a prior post, we discussed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Jevic Holding Corp., where the court upheld the use of so-called “structured dismissals” in bankruptcy cases, and the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Jevic. The Court’s ultimate ruling will likely have a significant impact upon bankruptcy practice.

The Housing and Planning Act 2016 (the “Act”) introduces special administration procedures for social housing associations which aim to protect the level of social housing in the UK. The new housing administration orders (“HAOs”) create an additional objective for insolvency practitioners to try to keep social housing in the regulated housing sector to maintain levels of social housing.

What does it mean to “cure” a default in the context of a plan of reorganization? This question arises by virtue of section 1123(a)(5)(G) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires that a plan provide adequate means for the plan’s implementation, including the “curing or waiving of any default.” On November 4, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined what it means to “cure” by holding that a debtor can only cure a contractual default under a plan of reorganization by complying with contractual post-default interest rate provisions.

When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.

Consumers could be set to jump up the insolvency hierarchy if Parliament backs the latest Law Commission recommendations.

The Law Commission’s report, Consumer Prepayments on Retailer Insolvency, recommends, among other things, that consumers who prepay for goods or services over £250 in the six months prior to a formal insolvency process should be paid out as preferential creditors instead of unsecured creditors.

The Jevic Holding Corp. bankruptcy case is proving to be precedent setting.  In a prior post, we examined how the court had greatly increased the evidentiary burden on a party seeking to hold one company liable for the debts of another company under a “single employer” theory.  That ruling was seen as a boon for private equity firms who were oftentimes the target of Chapter 11 creditor

During contract negotiations parties usually agree what law and which courts will determine any disputes arising from that contract. This brings certainty for the parties. However that certainty can vanish if one party is a foreign registered company and becomes insolvent – the other party may suddenly become exposed to unexpected foreign insolvency law. At this point, the drafting of a jurisdiction clause can be worth millions.

This is the situation in the recent case of Global Maritime Investments Cyprus Limited v O.W. Supply & Trading A/S [2015] EWHC 2690 (Comm).

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (“TPR”) will finally come into force on 1 August 2016, making it easier for third parties to bring claims against insurers of insolvent companies.  It has taken more than six years, spread over three separate governments and was amended even before it came into force, but TPR will finally replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).

The Background

When can a bank be at risk of unknowingly receiving a fraudulent transfer? How much information does a bank need to have before it is on “inquiry notice”? A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the risks that a bank takes when it ignores red flags and fails to investigate. This decision should be required reading for all lenders since, in the matter before the Seventh Circuit, the banks’ failure to investigate their borrower’s questionable activity caused the banks to lose their security and have their secured loans reduced to unsecured claims.

Did Trump win again? Yes, but this time it was not “The Donald” but was instead the casino operator Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.