In a recent decision that will be of considerable interest to insolvency practitioners, the English High Court dismissed a challenge to a liquidator's decision to assign causes of action originally vested in an insolvent company to a specialist insolvency litigation financing company.

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision of the High Court on whether immunity from suit, generally afforded to participants in court proceedings, extends to an examinee during an examination conducted under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("Section 236").

Businesses and individuals increasingly own assets in multiple jurisdictions. As an insolvency practitioner (or office holder), the chances of being appointed over an estate with assets located outside the UK are greater now than they ever have been.

On 8 October, the Government announced that it will bring forward new regulations requiring mandatory independent scrutiny of pre-pack administration sales where connected parties, including the former company’s existing directors or shareholders, are involved in the purchase.

Restructuring and insolvency issues are rarely out of the news at the moment, with a range of businesses seeking to adapt to the challenges of a post-COVID-19 world. You might have seen stories about struggling businesses going into administration or liquidation, or securing a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).

With the Company Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA 2020) grabbing all the headlines, the Finance Act 2020 (FA 2020), which received Royal Assent on 22 July, has gone somewhat under the radar. However, it has the potential to have an even greater impact on the restructuring market than CIGA 2020.

The two principal measures being brought in are:

The Finance Act received Royal Assent on 22 July 2020, bringing in significant changes for the restructuring market, as well as businesses that become insolvent.

The two principal measures being brought in are:

The interaction between the principles of insolvency law and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (JRS) have come into sharp focus in recent weeks, with the administrators of Carluccio's and Debenhams seeking guidance from the English courts about how the scheme impacts on their obligations to employees.

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.