In its recently issued decision in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court has clarified that intentionally fraudulent transfers designed to hinder or defraud creditors can fall within the definition of “actual fraud” under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and can sometimes result in corresponding liabilities being non-dischargeable in a personal bankruptcy proceeding.¹

In a March 29, 2016 decision,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") held that creditors are preempted from asserting state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbors" that, among other things, exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security (here, in the context of a leveraged buyout ("LBO")), from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to creditors.

This article contains a useful re-cap of the changes made to SIP 16 and the introduction of a pre-pack pool in November 2015. It also takes an early look at whether the pre-pack pool is working, citing some statistics on “take-up” since the pool’s inception and some examples of pre-packs to connected parties since the pool was introduced.

What is a “pre-pack”?

On January 4, 2016, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) deviated from SDNY precedent and held that, despite the absence of clear Congressional intent, the avoidance powers provided for under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code can be applied extraterritorially. As a result, a fraudulent transfer of property of a debtor’s estate that occurs outside of the United States can be recovered under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On December 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate must be subordinated to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims of the same type as the underlying securities in the bankruptcy proceeding.

On October 28, 2015, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision that significantly expands the jurisdictional bases that foreign issuers can rely upon to obtain relief in the United States under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.

According to recent press reports, Dave Forsey, Chief Executive of Sports Direct, is the latest (and most high-profile) executive to be hit by court proceedings concerning alleged failure to comply with redundancy notification procedures - in his case in his former position at fashion retailer, USC. As these and other reports confirm, there is clear evidence that the Insolvency Service is increasingly proactive in pursuing organisations, their senior personnel and insolvency practitioners who fail to file the requisite redundancy notification form (HR1) on time.

In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.¹ The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its

The Insolvency (Protection of Essential Supplies) Order 2015 which comes in to force on 1 October 2015 significantly changes the options available for suppliers of IT services in relation to their rights against insolvent customers. Any IT supplier caught within the definition of the new legislation will need to beware that they can no longer insist on payment of outstanding invoices as a condition of continued supply to an insolvent business, nor rely on clauses applying automatic price rises upon insolvency of the customer.

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”).