Introduction The UK Government has announced that it will be introducing legislation under which the UK tax authorities1 will move up the creditor hierarchy in English insolvency proceedings2 in respect of certain taxes paid by

Introduction

In the recent case of Global Corporate Ltd v Hale , the Court of Appeal was asked to assess whether sums, described as “interim dividends”, paid to Mr. Hale (the “Respondent”) in his capacity as both a director and shareholder of Powerstation UK Limited (the “Company”), had been made in accordance with section 830 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) prior to the Company’s insolvency.

The High Court has formally adopted new guidelines approved by the fledgling Judicial Insolvency Network (“JIN”) designed to encourage and enhance communication between courts where parallel insolvency proceedings have been commenced in different jurisdictions (the “Guidelines”).

In this post-Stern opinion (the “Opinion”), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) addresses two main issues with respect to the approval of nonconsensual third-party releases provided for in a chapter 11 plan of confirmation, namely whether a Bankruptcy Court has (1) subject matter jurisdiction to approve, and (2) the constitutional authority to grant such releases. Opinion at 2.

Since February 2016, the Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware provide for combined hearings on approval of disclosure statements and confirmation of plans and for the use of combined disclosure statement and plans in liquidating chapter 11 cases.

A topic that receives relatively little attention is the practice of plan proponents to include “death trap” provisions in chapter 11 plans. A death trap provision can provide for a distribution, or a larger distribution, to an impaired class in exchange for a favorable vote on the plan.

In a decision released on November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the holding of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, affirmed by the District Court, that EFIH is not required to pay make-whole payments. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 16-1351, _ F.3d _ (3d Cir. Nov. 17, 2016).

Summary of Facts

In Re DTEK Finance BV,¹ the English High Court decided that a change in the governing law of bonds from New York to English law, established a sufficient connection with the English jurisdiction for it to sanction the bonds' restructuring via a UK scheme of arrangement.

Background

The Supreme Court (unanimously dismissing the appeal in Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension &Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA) has held that “economic activity” is central to the definition of “establishment” in the Insolvency Regulation¹.

The High Court has rejected the argument that amounts owing to British Gas Trading Ltd (BGT) under post-administration, deemed contracts for the  provision of gas and electricity are automatically classed as expenses of the administration. The  court has reserved for consideration, however, whether and if so how an administrator’s conduct may  give the liability super priority or bring the salvage principle into play.

Background and preliminary issue