The court will not review a bankruptcy order where there has been no material change and evidence subsequently adduced could have been available at the original hearing.

The comprehensive financial reform bill recently passed by the Senate1 creates a new “orderly liquidation authority” (“OLA”) that would allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) to seize control of a financial company2 whose imminent collapse is determined to threaten the financial system as a whole.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Bankruptcy Court decision that invalidated the use by creditors of so-called “triangular”, or non-mutual, setoffs in which obligations are offset among not only the parties to a bilateral contract but also their affiliates. In re SemCrude, L.P., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42477 (D. Del.

Justice has to be seen to be done. Without clear reasons from the court as to the decision it reached, a party is entitled to have reheard issues it raised on an earlier application but which there is no evidence the court considered.

We first reported on The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Louise St John Poulton v Ministry of Justice in the October 2009 banking update. In short, the Court Service had failed to give notice of a bankruptcy petition to the Chief Land Registrar. As a result, no pending action had been registered against the name of the debtor and no notice had been registered against the debtor's property.

On May 5, 2009, Judge James Peck, the Bankruptcy Judge in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases, held that the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code do not override the mutuality requirements for setoff under section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. As a consequence, the Bankruptcy Court prohibited Swedbank, a non-debtor counter party to a swap agreement, from setting off pre-petition claims against Lehman against funds collected for Lehman’s account postpetition. See In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., Bankr. Case No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.

On January 25, 2010, Judge James M. Peck of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that provisions in a CDO indenture subordinating payments due to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc., as swap provider, constituted unenforceable ipso facto clauses under the facts and circumstances of this case. The Court also held that, because the payment priority provisions were not contained in the four corners of a swap agreement, the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor protections, which generally permit the operation of ipso facto clauses, did not apply.

S271 Insolvency Act 1986 provides that a bankruptcy petition may be dismissed if the court is satisfied that a debtor can pay his debt, or has made an offer to secure or compound the debt, the acceptance of which offer would lead to the petition being dismissed and that the offer has been unreasonably refused. But what is a reasonable refusal?

The Insolvency Service (IS) has published a consultation paper on reforming debtor petition bankruptcy and early discharge from bankruptcy. The proposed reforms, which are aimed at speeding up the procedure and lowering costs, are to:

Where "prejudice" is suffered by a creditor or contributory, the court can order a compulsory liquidation despite a voluntary liquidation having already been entered into.