Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.

Once again, the statistics show an increase in corporate and personal insolvencies nationally, with a reported 16,090 corporate insolvencies and 115,299 personal insolvencies in the UK in 2018. While the media is focusing on how this reflects on the economy and the government, insolvency specialist Tony Sampson looks at what it means for the millions of creditors involved in those insolvencies. In short, what will those creditors actually receive?

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

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.

Are you a company director? If so, are you fully aware of your responsibilities and duties to your company? It is common for directors to be completely uninformed of the full extent of their duties, sometimes holding the belief that they can essentially do what they like – particularly if they are also a sole shareholder, which is often the case with SMEs.

What are directors’ duties?

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.

The benefits of being a director of a limited company are many. Not necessarily because of the tax benefits but, rather, the personal protection given to directors by the corporate veil surrounding limited companies.

That corporate veil means that directors’ liabilities for the debts of the company are limited to the extent of their shareholding (maybe £1) in the UK this concept (outside insolvency) is sacrosanct and protected by the Courts.