It is a cornerstone of English insolvency law and practice that creditors of a company in financial difficulty should share rateably (“pari passu”) in that company's assets. Put at its simplest, creditors with security should be paid before creditors with no security and unsecured creditors should share rateably between each other. Where an unconnected and unsecured creditor is paid before another creditor in the same category, that payment risks being set aside as a "preference", should the company subsequently enter liquidation or administration. But when does a preference occur?

The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 is a significant decision for the law of directors’ duties.

The Autumn budget will have done little to ease the concerns of companies facing significant trading pressures as the country tries to get back on its feet following the pandemic, the ongoing effects of Brexit, the Ukraine conflict and the current cost of living crisis. Inflation has now topped its forecasted peak at 11.1%; there are soaring energy prices and the UK is now officially in recession.

On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court delivered its long awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC V Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 dismissing an appeal by BTI. Lord Reed and Lady Arden each gave their own judgments which concurred, largely applying the same reasoning, with the judgment of Lord Briggs with whom Lord Kitchen and Lord Hodge agreed.

The Insolvency Rules 2016 ("IR 2016") are due to come into force in England and Wales on 6 April 2017. Its purpose is to modernise and streamline the insolvency process in England and Wales in order to reduce the costs and potentially increase returns to creditors. IR 2016 incorporates the changes to insolvency law and practice brought about by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.

This article highlights the principal areas of change and their practical implications.

Background

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.