Indentures and other agreements governing complex, multitiered structured debt products will typically contain a series of reserves, the adequacy of whose funding will take precedence over payments to noteholders. While the funding requirements of the reserve accounts will be set forth in the agreement, the formulation of these provisions will leave administrators considerable leeway in determining the cash maintenance levels appropriate for the various accounts. In a recent case, UMB National Association v. Airplanes Limited (S.D.N.Y.

Unlike an opinion, an order of the court is often not from the pen of the judge. Typically, a court order is submitted to the judge after negotiation among the parties. So, when a disagreement arises among the parties regarding the interpretation of the court’s order, how does the judge who signed the order go about resolving the matter? The issue came up not long ago in Outer Harbor Terminal LLC (Bkr. D. Del. May, 5, 2017), in which Judge Laurie Silverstein of the District of  Delaware bankruptcy court was confronted with a dispute over her own final DIP order.

The case of Singularis Holdings Ltd v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch) concerned the liability of a stockbroking company for failing to investigate fraudulent transactions. 

In Akers & Ors v Samba Financial Group (Rev 1) [2017] UKSC 6, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that British insolvency officers can only void dispositions of a company's assets held on trust in certain circumstances. 

The Supreme Court in McIntosh v Fisk upheld the Court of Appeal decision permitting the liquidators of Ross Asset Management Ltd (RAM) to claw back the fictitious profits paid out to Mr McIntosh.  However the claw back did not apply to the original investment of $500,000.

The majority found that McIntosh had a defence for the $500,000 as he had provided "real and substantial valuable consideration".  Once RAM misappropriated the $500,000 it became indebted to McIntosh for that amount, this equated to the provision of valuable consideration.

This question arose in Queensland recently in Linc Energy Ltd (in liq): Longley & Ors v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection.  The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing the company not to comply with an environmental protection order that required the company to maintain equipment that the liquidators had disclaimed.

Ebert Construction Limited v Sanson concerned the question of whether payments made by a third party under a 'direct agreement' to finance construction are payments made by the company in liquidation for the purposes of the insolvent transaction regime. Direct agreements are an agreement between the developer, builder and financier of a construction project. The agreement in this case obliged the financier to make progress payments directly to the builder throughout the duration of the project.

In Official Assignee v Carrim the High Court considered the concept of a "gift" in the Insolvency Act 2006.

The Official Assignee sought to cancel insolvent gifts made by the bankrupt to complete a property purchase by a family trust settled by the bankrupt and Ms Carrim, the bankrupt's partner (as trustees).  The High Court considered:

Arena Capital Limited (Arena) was a Ponzi scheme.  Arena's liquidators applied under s284(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 for directions regarding the distribution of assets under liquidation.

The Court held that dividing the assets into trust assets and general assets was inefficient in the circumstances and ordered a "common pool approach."  The Court ordered distribution on a pro rata, pari passu basis.  The investors had borne the same degree of risk and it was not cost-effective to trace the numerous small contributions.

In 2013, Mrs Hanara was adjudicated bankrupt.  The Assignee subsequently disclaimed Mrs Hanara's half-interest in a Hastings property (the Interest), in which Mrs Hanara had very little equity.  In 2016, the owner of the other half-share in the property, Mr Hanara, was also adjudicated bankrupt.  The Assignee, acting in respect of both bankrupt estates, looked again at the likely equity that might be available in the property.  The Assignee considered that, on its own, Mr Hanara's one half- share in the property would be unsaleable and therefore applied under s 119