The Insolvency Service has just released its personal insolvency statistics for 2017 revealing an upturn in overall personal insolvencies (just under 10% more than in 2016) and an increase of around 1/5th (19.8% on 2016) of people entering into Individual Insolvency Arrangements (IVAs). More people entered into IVAs last year than in 2008 (when many consider the credit crunch took its grip).

Despite the Treasury’s comparison of independent forecasts for the UK economy showing an overall upturn for January 2018, there appears to be a nasty outbreak of bad weather looming. Close on the heels of the reported financial woes of Toys R Us and House of Fraser comes the news of the fashion retailer New Look and now, massively, Carillion.

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).