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.
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.
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 19 June 2024, the expected amendment to the Act on Transformations of Business Corporations and Cooperatives was published in the Collection of Laws. The amendment mainly transposes Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
In addition to harmonising the process of cross-border transformations, unifying the regulation and reducing the administrative burden, the amendment also introduces a completely new form of transformation.
Below we summarise the key changes.
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.
No, it isn’t. We now have two cases where the Court has confirmed that insolvency practitioners do not need the consent of paid secured creditors when extending an administration under para. 78 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).
This author—whose practice is heavily weighted toward representation of official committees in large chapter 11 cases—has previously penned articles relating to questions surrounding the permanency of an official committee.
This question was considered in the recent case of Pindar where the judge concluded that an administration had been validly extended where the consent of one of the secured creditors (who had been paid) was not obtained.
When a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease, one of the lessor’s immediate questions is who will be the assignee. But what happens when a liquidating debtor seeks to assume a lease and waits up to two years thereafter to determine who the assignee will be? Although peculiar, the analysis of whether to grant the assumption rests on evaluating the three basic requirements under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.