As ever, ‘back to school’ and the shift into Autumn provides an opportunity to reflect on the state of play in the UK economy. For the last few years – thanks in no small part to factors outside of their influence – September has been a time when clients have been seeking a lighthouse via which to avoid the rocks.
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) (“Purdue”), the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan. The Court narrowly read the Code’s language, providing that a plan may “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title,” 11 U.S.C.
We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.
We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).
Insolvency statistics for August were recently released and the number of companies entering into formal insolvency processes is the highest it has been for several years.
The economic outlook isn’t great, with the IMF predicting growth in the UK will be lowest of all the G7, off the back of pandemics, wars, energy crises, labour shortages, and borderline hyperinflation.
In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.
Key takeaways
Restructuring Advisory Director, Luke Wilson, reflects on the manufacturing sector's economic activity.
From my experience every battle in business or life always has two sides, the one which is glaringly obvious, the fight itself – the difficulties and the alarming thoughts of, how do I find a way through – then the other side, beneath the surface, there is an abundance of opportunity for change, growth and learning. This is no different for the current state of flux that the manufacturing sector is facing.
Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.
Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.
Click here to listen to the audio
Restructuring Advisory Director, Luke Wilson sits down with Neil Taylor, founder and managing director of NTI, on the CPD Tap podcast to explore the latest insolvency trends.