The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.

A creditor in bankruptcy must normally file a proof of claim by a certain specified time, known as the bar date, or have its claim be barred.

The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, published on 30 April, show that insolvency rates remain significantly below pre-pandemic levels, demonstrating the continued success of Government measures in preventing a COVID-19 related wave of insolvencies.

In March, we reported on a brief filed by the Solicitor General recommending denial of a petition for certiorari filed by Tribune creditors seeking Supreme Court review of the Second Circuit ruling dismissing their state-law fraudulent transfer claims.

A discharge of debt in bankruptcy “operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). Certain debts, however, including debts “for violation of . . . any of the State securities laws,” are not subject to discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19). A discharge injunction does not bar the collection of such debts.

For most businesses, the Chancellor’s budget statement yesterday brings some welcome news with the extension of certain critical Covid-19 support measures. However, this is coupled with the removal of certain government-backed loan schemes and a future increase in the corporation tax rate from 19 per cent to 25 per cent from 2023 onwards.

The UK's latest quarterly company insolvency statistics, including the 2020 annual summary, were published on 29 January, painting a picture of the effectiveness of government measures introduced over the past year to support companies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In Uralkali v Rowley and another [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch), the High Court confirmed that it is unlikely that an officeholder would be found to owe a duty of care to participants in a sale process out of an insolvent estate. This is an important decision which will give officeholder’s considerable comfort that operating an administration or liquidation sale in the ordinary course is unlikely to expose them to risk of liability to a bidder for the way the process is run.

We have blogged previously about section 546(e), the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain transfers otherwise subject to avoidance as preferences or fraudulent transfers. See 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). Among the transfers protected by the section 546(e) safe harbor are transfers by or to a “financial participant” made “in connection with a securities contract.” Id.

At 11pm on 31 December 2020, the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) came into effect implementing the UK’s exit from the single market. The TCA covers some important things in great detail and some things more scantly. Unfortunately for insolvency practitioners, it is largely silent on almost all issues relating to insolvency, meaning that, despite not technically having a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, for insolvency practitioners it may certainly feel that way.

Recognition of insolvency proceedings