As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

Despite three recent landmark UK restructuring plan decisions, uncertainty remains around the value, if any, a plan company should offer dissenting creditors as the “deliverability price” of a plan.

Actions brought against the BHS directors by the group’s liquidators have resulted in the largest reported award for wrongful trading since the provision’s introduction, but the judgment highlights some unsettled areas of the law relating to directors’ duties.

The key distinction between a fixed and a floating charge is well established as a matter of English law.

The bankruptcy court presiding over the FTX Trading bankruptcy last month issued a memorandum opinion addressing valuation of cryptocurrency-based claims and how to “calculate a reasonable discount to be applied to the Petition Date market price” for certain cryptocurrency tokens.

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld a trial court’s rejection of a borrower’s allegations that a mortgagee and its servicer violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by allegedly inaccurately reporting her loan as delinquent following the borrower’s successful completion of her bankruptcy plan, allegedly rejecting her subsequent monthly payments, and filing a foreclosure action based on the supposed post-bankruptcy defaults.

File your proof of claim before the bar date. That’s a principle every creditor in a bankruptcy case should adhere by. But on June 7, 2024, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York may have increased the degree of diligence parties need to conduct to determine whether they are a potential creditor in a case and therefore required to file a proof of claim.

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to discharge creditors’ claims against a non-debtor without the creditors’ consent (except in asbestos cases). The decision in Harrington v.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the anti-modification provision in the federal Bankruptcy Code applies to loans secured by mixed-use real properties, such as the large parcel at issue here which functioned both for commercial use and as the debtor’s principal residence.

A copy of the opinion in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association is available at: Link to Opinion.