Overview

Insolvency practitioners will be familiar with section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act") and what is commonly termed the 'use it or lose it' provisions. But what exactly is meant by a trustee in bankruptcy being informed or becoming aware of a bankrupt's interest in a property for the purposes of section 283A(5) of the Act?

At first instance, a bankrupt's claim that she had informed her trustee or that her trustee had become aware of such an interest was dismissed. The bankrupt appealed.

Overview

In a very litigious and long-running saga concerning some land near Bicester, a recent judgment involved parties applying to remove the Administrators.

In summary:

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

Economic headwinds continue to make life difficult for retail and leisure operators. Wilko, of course, is the latest high profile retailer to enter administration, following on the heels of retailers such as Paperchase, Hotter Shoes and AMT Coffee. Cineworld's route out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy has involved the administration of its UK parent, although the operating companies have remained unaffected.

On 20 May 2022 Mr Justice Adam Johnson handed down his judgment in the matter of Swiss Cottage Properties Limited (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 1495 (Ch).  Deloitte, represented by Derrick Dale QC and Ben Griffiths as instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP, successfully defended a claim for negligence. A copy of the judgment is available here.  

To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.

One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.

In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.