Fulltext Search

Overview

If you walk along the seafront in the Lancashire town of Morecambe, you will come across a statue of the late Eric Morecambe. Many of us will remember Eric as half of one of the most famous comic double acts in the United Kingdom. Morecambe and Wise made us laugh, not so much through innuendo but more through the perfect timing of their various on screen exchanges. So important was timing to Eric Morecambe that one of the quotes at the foot of his statue is the phrase "In life, everything is timing".

Overview

Insolvency practitioners will be familiar with section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "Act") and what is commonly termed the 'use it or lose it' provisions. But what exactly is meant by a trustee in bankruptcy being informed or becoming aware of a bankrupt's interest in a property for the purposes of section 283A(5) of the Act?

At first instance, a bankrupt's claim that she had informed her trustee or that her trustee had become aware of such an interest was dismissed. The bankrupt appealed.

Overview

It has been just over 6 years since the Bill for the Prescription (Scotland) Act 2018 ("the 2018 Act") received royal assent. Sections 5 and 13 of the 2018 Act came into force, perhaps earlier than most anticipated, on 1 June 2022. Since then, depending on who you speak to, you are likely to hear differing opinions on whether enough has been done to re-balance the 'defender friendly' discoverability test developed though cases such as Morrison and Gordon's Trustees.

Overview

In a very litigious and long-running saga concerning some land near Bicester, a recent judgment involved parties applying to remove the Administrators.

In summary:

Overview

We asked our team for their predictions of what they think 2025 might bring in the Property Disputes sector.

Insolvencies and Restructuring

To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.

Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.

A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.