In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

The enforcement of a lender’s claim for a make-whole premium in a chapter 11 case has created significant controversy among legal practitioners and the courts. Notably, the three circuit courts of appeal that have addressed make-whole claims, i.e. the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have issued conflicting decisions on the nature of these claims and their allowance under the Bankruptcy Code. In this post we provide a brief summary of make-whole premiums and address the controversy among the circuits.

Odd as it may seem, you have to plough through 122 sections of the UK Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”) before you finally reach the section that sets out the criteria for establishing insolvency. Section 123 of the Act lists a series of circumstances under which a company may be deemed insolvent. Some of these circumstances are factual—for example, owing a debt of more than £750 for more than 21 days after a demand for payment—but two rely on a legal test of company insolvency.

In a much-awaited judgment, the UK Supreme Court has decided that the liability of a company in administration or liquidation to contribute to an under-funded pension fund following a Financial Support Direction or a Contribution Notice is a provable debt ranking equally with other unsecured creditors. Crucially, it is not an expense of the administration or liquidation which would cause it to rank ahead of all creditors (except fixed charge holders) and even the administrator's or liquidator's own remuneration.

There is something positively Dickensian when looking at the anti-deprivation rule (the "rule") and images come up of scribes working in dark and dismal rooms scratching their quills by dim candle light. Indeed, the rule dates back to the nineteenth century and many lawyers would be hard-pressed to explain it even if they are able to grasp the contradictions and fine distinctions thrown up by the old cases. In essence, the rule provides that a contractual provision is void if it provides for the transfer of an asset from the owner to a third party upon the insolvency of the owner.

The ready availability of credit over the first seven years of the past decade fuelled a massive, property-led consumer boom. Although perhaps a long time coming, the restriction in the continuing availability of such credit since mid 2007 has resulted in a serious recession. The scale of the problems will take time to unwind but given the continuing restrictions on credit, consumers are spending less, especially on high-value discretionary items.