The Scottish Court of Session has, for the first time, considered what is required to establish a ‘liability’ for the purposes of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “2010 Act”). In this matter, the Court found that a ‘decree in default’, issued due to the insolvent Insured’s failed to appear at a procedural hearing, was sufficient to establish ‘liability’.

Earlier in April last year, we wrote an article on the insolvency exemption to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). Insolvency practitioners will be disappointed to hear that it has now been confirmed that the exemption will be lifted later this year.  

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).