This month’s summary of “also ran” update items forms a fairly eclectic mix, however some useful items can be pulled out of them.

PPF guidance to Insolvency Practitioners onpre-pack

The recent decision in Brooks and Willetts (Joint Liquidators of Robin Hood Centre plc) v Armstrong and Walker [2015] EWHC 2289 sets out guidance on the burden of proof for directors in wrongful trading claims when seeking to establish that they have taken every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors. We explore the issues raised for practitioners.

The background to the case

The question of appropriate action in the face of directors’ duties to creditors in the pre-insolvency “twilight zone” is a perennial one. In particular, the question of preservation of asset value (given all the hoo- ha about pre-packs), and whether to transfer out assets before insolvency has an impact on value, is fraught with difficulty. Two recent cases offer contrasting versions of how to go about it.

Background – Re French UK plc

On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

In a May 4, 2015 opinion¹ , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.

Recent weeks have seen a number of decisions concerning liquidations – in this article we explore three of the more interesting ones.

1)  Overseas application of s.213 - Jetivia SA and another v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others [2015] UKSC 23

The past three months have seen the publication of a spate of forthcoming regulatory and legislative changes. In this bulletin we investigate some of the more significant developments.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015 – threshold for bankruptcy petitions

This order, which comes into effect on 1 October 2015, makes amendments to section 267(4) IA 1986, increasing the threshold for bankruptcy petitions to £5,000 (currently £750).

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

Employees who transfer to a new employer from a business that is under insolvency proceedings may be able to recover unpaid wages and other debts from the Secretary of State.

However, BIS v Dobrucki has confirmed that the Secretary of State will only pick up the liabilities of the old employer (the transferor).  It will not be responsible for liabilities that are incurred after the transfer has taken place; that is, any liability of the new employer (the transferee).

The background