The UK retail and hospitality sectors are entering the crucial winter trading period under renewed pressure following the Chancellor’s November Budget. Economic growth remains weak, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has downgraded its annual economic forecasts through to 2030, signalling that the operating environment for consumer-facing businesses is likely to remain difficult for some time. Meanwhile, insolvency levels continue their upward trajectory: 2,029 company insolvencies were recorded in October 2025, a 17% increase compared with the same month last year.

The insolvency of a premises licence holder has an immediate impact from a licensing perspective. Most premises licences are granted in perpetuity. They can be surrendered by the holder, temporarily lapse if annual fees are not paid, or be revoked following a review. These are actions the licence holder either proactively instigates or is given notice of. However, a licence lapsing because of insolvency is different because the premises licence holder may be unaware that a licence has lapsed and it may be too late to rectify matters when the lapse is brought to their attention.

In the high-stake world of business, deals are often framed as life-or-death decisions. The pressure to close can feel insurmountable, particularly when the stakes are high, and the future of your company hangs in the balance. However, there is no deal you absolutely have to do. No matter how tempting or necessary a deal might appear, the power to walk away is one of the most valuable assets you can wield.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.

Bankruptcy courts appear to be increasingly sending state law claims to the district court for final review, as illustrated by a recent decision from the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Texas. In Gomez v. Lone Star National Bank (In re Saenz), Jose Gomez financed his acquisition of a restaurant from Humberto Saenz. When the restaurant failed, Gomez sued his lender and Saenz on various claims, but Saenz filed for bankruptcy protection. The lender then moved for summary judgment against Gomez’s claims for common-law fraud and negligence.