On 26 August the UK Government announced its intention to introduce radical reforms to insolvency law in the catchily named consultation paper "Insolvency and Corporate Governance – Government Response". Despite the 82 pages, the government kept their cards relatively close to their chest choosing not to reveal their big plans but with suggestions about the reforms ahead to "enable more companies not only to survive, but to thrive".
The Department for BEIS has recently published a consultation to the UK's insolvency and corporate governance landscape including significant proposals to extend the liability of directors of holding companies that sell insolvent subsidiaries.
The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.
On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.
On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.
When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).
David Pomeroy, partner and head of the restructuring and insolvency team at Bristol law firm Ashfords, shares his thoughts on how the city's high streets will need to evolve in order to survive
Every week we see a report of another major high street retailer on the brink. Mothercare is the latest to announce restructure plans and RBS has announced the closure of many of its high street branches, including Clifton.
They follow hot on the heels of brand names such as Jamie’s Italian, Maplin, Toys R Us, Byron, Prezzo and New Look closing or scaling back.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code shields certain transfers involving settlement payments and other payments in connection with securities contracts (for example, payment for stock) made to certain financial intermediaries, such as banks, from avoidance as a fraudulent conveyance or preferential transfer. In recent years, several circuit courts interpreted 546(e) as applying to a transfer that flows through a financial intermediary, even if the ultimate recipient of the transfer would not qualify for the protection of 546(e).
Following the collapse of Monarch and Air Berlin last year, the International Air Transport Association ("IATA") has suggested that bankruptcy laws should be reviewed globally in order to allow a “reasonable timeframe” for airlines to continue operating after entering insolvency to allow more passengers to complete their journeys.
The deadline for interested purchasers of every child's favourite superstore, Toys R Us, to submit their letters of intent fell last week, with sources indicating that several parties had expressed interest in purchasing the beleaguered retailer. Hilco Capital, the company which saved HMV from Liquidation in 2013, have reportedly submitted a bid and are believed to be amongst the favourites for the troubled retailer.