A recent English High Court decision has further clarified the position on what amounts to an “abuse of process” when it comes to determining the motive behind the presentation of a winding up petition by a creditor. The High Court has ruled that only where a petition is issued for a purpose other than to ensure the equitable winding-up of a debtor company can it be considered an “abuse of process”, and goes on to outline what may constitute such an abuse.

The UK’s Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is about to publish new guidelines to reflect their increased focus on the approval of Insolvency Practitioner’s (IPs) fees. The guidelines require IPs to provide more regular detail of accruing and anticipated costs to the PPF when they are appointed over employers where Defined Benefit (Final Salary) pension schemes are significant creditors. More specifically IPs will now be required to provide a more detailed explanation of how their proposed remuneration reflects the value provided to creditors.

In the recent case of Wilson (as liquidator of 375 Live Ltd) v SMC Properties Limited, the English High Court reviewed the policy behind section 127 Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) and the underlying principles that apply to validation order applications.

On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city of Detroit had satisfied the five expressly delineated eligibility requirements for filing under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code¹ and so could proceed with its bankruptcy case.

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,¹ in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.

Introduction

The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.

In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.