Long awaited insolvency reforms in the UK, plus the government’s COVID-19 proposals on the use of statutory demands – and much more
What’s the latest?
Editor’s Note: While we at The Bankruptcy Cave always enjoy writing about new cases or legal developments, we really love using our posts as an opportunity to pass along tips, easily forgotten rules, and things that make the client think you are a rock star (and avoid a client’s distrust in your ability to captain the Chapter 11 ship).
In some good news for commercial vendors, the Supreme Court of Texas recently ruled that payments for ordinary services provided to an insolvent customer are not recoverable as fraudulent transfers, even if the customer turns out to be a “Ponzi scheme” instead of a legitimate business.
The UK High Court today took a crucial step towards resolving the difficult issue of when administrators must pay rent.
After nearly two years of discussion and consultation, the UK Government has today announced that it will not be seeking to introduce new legislative controls on pre-packs, including a proposed three day notice or "cooling off" period.
The term “pre-pack” typically refers to a sale of all or part of a company’s business which is negotiated prior to the company going into administration and then completed by the administrator shortly after his appointment.
Last week the High Court of England and Wales revoked a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) promoted by retailer Miss Sixty in a damning judgment that called into question the conduct of the practitioners involved. The case of Mourant & Co Trustees Limited v Sixty UK Limited (in administration) [2010] could end so-called guarantee stripping – where the CVA purports to discharge guarantees given by a third party – and provide powerful ammunition to landlords seeking to negotiate future CVAs with tenant companies.
His Honour Judge Purle QC in Re Cornercare Limited [2010] EWHC 393 (CH) has clarified English law on the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators. He has held that there is nothing in the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") to prevent the filing of successive notices of intention to appoint administrators, where the original notice of intention to appoint an administrator had not been acted upon for good reason.