Some of the customers of Farepak, the failed Christmas hamper company that went into liquidation with BDO Stoy Hayward some three years ago, will apparently soon receive their first dividend cheques out of the insolvency. Perhaps even in time for Christmas 2009!

The High Court in England has made an interesting decision in the case of ED Games Limited. A director of that company procured that it did not pay VAT for a period prior to its liquidation and in that period, the net deficit on the company's balance sheet increased. The High Court has held that the director could be held personally liable for the increase in such net deficit.

With ever increasing numbers of corporate insolvencies, it is likely that the courts will see an increase in litigation raised by insolvency practitioners and creditors arising out of restructuring arrangements entered into by companies in an attempt to stave off insolvency.

While debt restructurings must always remain a significant part of the corporate recovery toolkit, all stakeholders must be aware of the underlying rules relating to the challengeability of transactions in the run up to insolvencies.

There are two main challengeable areas in Scots law:

The Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution was tasked with recommending changes to the present constitutional arrangements for Scotland. The Commission has now reported and has proposed that the UK Insolvency Service should have responsibility for lawmaking in respect of all elements of Scottish corporate insolvency with "appropriate input from the relevant department(s) of the Scottish Government".

The Pensions Regulator recently became involved in the current controversies attaching to pre-pack arrangements.

Company Voluntary Arrangements ("CVAs") have been in the news recently for all of the right reasons. The CVA proposal advanced by JJB Sports was approved by an overwhelming majority of creditors. This has allowed the survival of JJB Sports (JJB) in its current form and allayed fears that the company would be forced into administration or liquidation with consequent job losses and further detriment to creditors.

On August 30, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Northern Texas issued its ruling on whether Americas Mining Corporation (“AMC”) (and its parent Grupo Mexico) had caused ASARCO LLC (“ASARCO”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo Mexico, to fraudulently transfer stock of Southern Peru Copper Company (“SPCC”) from ASARCO to AMC. The Court determined that AMC was liable for (1) intentional fraudulent transfer, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty under New Jersey law; and (3) civil conspiracy under Arizona law. See ASARCO LLC v.

In the Budget, the Government announced two consultation processes aimed at breathing new life into the rescue culture.

The Insolvency Service intends to consult on the desirability of super-priority status for funding to companies that are in administration or that are subject to a company voluntary arrangement. Such a super-priority would allow lenders to participate in the restructuring and recovery of such companies to a greater degree.

On April 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy Court and concluded that special ERISA “termination premiums” due PBGC are not contingent prepetition claims subject to discharge in a chapter 11 reorganization. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Oneida, Ltd., 2009 WL 929528 (2d Cir. April 8, 2009), rev’g Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 383 B.R. 29 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., 2008).