On 5 October 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others. This is the first time that the Supreme Court has addressed the questions of whether there is a duty owed to creditor where a company may be at risk of insolvency, and the point at which that duty is triggered.
Criminal prosecutions for administrators are rare, and rarer still are prosecutions under employment legislation. However, a recent decision has confirmed that an administrator can be prosecuted and personally liable for a failure to notify the Secretary of State of proposed collective redundancies under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
When used correctly, pre-pack administrations can be an effective means of creating an opportunity for the rescue of an insolvent business. However, concerns are regularly expressed about the lack of transparency in the sale process and the potential for poor outcomes for unsecured creditors, particularly where a disposal involves connected parties. These concerns have been exacerbated by some unfavourable media reports about a limited number of high-profile cases, and the speed at which transactions are often required to take place in order to preserve value and jobs.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（下称“《民法典担保解释》”或“新规”）对金融资管业务的影响，我们在上篇及中篇中从担保物权受托持有、增信文件性质、上市公司对外担保、担保物权登记、抵押预告登记等角度进行了详细探析。本篇我们将从资产收益权回购交易、仲裁与申请实现担保物权程序、担保与破产衔接角度，着重介绍新规的修订及对金融资管业务的影响。择重点概括如下：
一、新规明确特定资产或资产收益权转让及回购交易中让与担保规则的处理方法
When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?
The Insolvency Act 1986 (HMRC Debts: Priority on Insolvency) Regulations 2020 will apply to all business insolvencies that commence on or after 1 December 2020. They provide for certain debts owed to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to become preferential debts in the event of a business entering a formal insolvency. It is important that creditors understand whether they are affected by these changes so that they can decide whether they need to take steps to protect their position.
The relevant debts