The judgment of the Court of Appeal (Newey, Males and Snowden LLJ) in Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417 demonstrates the importance of the adequacy of any undertaking in damages given in support of an application for a freezing order and underlines the need for full and frank disclosure.

Mehers v Khilji [2023] EWHC 298 (Ch) is an interesting case about the bankruptcy “use it or lose it” provision enshrined in s 283A Insolvency Act 1986. The provision gives a trustee in bankruptcy three years to decide what, if anything, to do about an interest in a property which is the home of the bankrupt, the bankrupt’s spouse or civil partner, or a former spouse or civil partner of the bankrupt and which forms part of the bankrupt’s estate.

Miles J’s judgment in Re Sova Capital Ltd [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch) will, like that of Jonathan Hilliard QC in Re Petropavlovsk Plc,be welcomed as a further example of the courts acting to assist insolvency practitioners selling assets in unusual circumstances.

Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.

ICC Judge Barber’s judgment in the case of Purkiss v Kennedy & ors (Re Ethos Solutions Ltd) [2022] EWHC 3098 (Ch) deals with a complex and late application for joinder and to re-amend proceedings. It was handed down following a four day hearing and weighs in at over 200 paragraphs, facts indicative of the unusual nature of the application.

The application before Richard Smith J in Re Prezzo Investco Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1679 (Ch) was for sanction of a restructuring plan between the company and certain of its creditors under ss 901F and 901G of Part 26A Companies Act 2006.

The case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Ors has had a long and tortuous history, culminating in a Supreme Court decision which has now been handed down over a year after a two day hearing in May last year ([2022] UKSC 25). The bare facts can be simply stated.

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.