In Short
The Situation: Circuit courts were split on whether mere retention by a creditor of estate property violates the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question inCity of Chicago v. Fulton, in which the City of Chicago had refused to return debtors' vehicles after they filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions.
What are the proposed changes to rules on transfer of ownership?
The key takeaway
The Law Commission’s proposed changes are likely to improve consumers’ odds of owning goods bought online in the event of retailer insolvency, even before they have left the retailer’s possession.
The background
In this chapter of our Annual Insurance Review 2021, we look at the main developments in 2020 and expected issues in 2021 for D&O.
Key developments in 2020
For D&O insurers, 2020 was all about the hardening market – with rates doubling in some cases and limits contracting – and the underlying causes of that.
In this chapter of our Annual Insurance Review 2021, we look at the main developments in 2020 and expected issues in 2021 for restructuring and insolvency.
Key developments in 2020
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 came into force on 26 June 2020. The changes introduced by that Act were some of the most significant made to English insolvency law for decades.
An application to admit witness evidence outside the directions timetable should be treated like an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 according to the High Court in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd v Langhelle.
Facts
Italy has fully integrated the European Account Preservation Order into its procedures alongside existing protective tools available to creditors, who can now also request that their debtors' bank accounts in the European Union be frozen directly by the account bank.
On October 18, 2020 Italy adapted its civil procedure rules to incorporate the European Account Preservation Order ("EAPO") (introduced by EU Regulation 655/2014, in force since January 2017 ("the Regulation")) as an additional protective measure in favor of creditors.
In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-8-07102020, 2020 WL 3891501 (U.S.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to obtain credit or financing during the course of a bankruptcy case is often crucial to the debtor's prospects for either maintaining operations pending the development of a confirmable plan of reorganization or facilitating an orderly liquidation designed to maximize asset values for the benefit of all stakeholders. In a chapter 11 case, financing (and/or cash infusions through recapitalization) also is often a key component of the reorganized debtor's ability to operate post-bankruptcy.
The ability of a bankruptcy trustee to avoid certain transfers of a debtor's property and to recover the property or its value from the transferees is an essential tool in maximizing the value of a bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit could, if followed by other courts, curtail a trustee's avoidance and recovery powers. In Rajala v. Spencer Fane LLP (In re Generation Resources Holding Co.), 964 F.3d 958 (10th Cir. 2020), reh'g denied, No.
In the latest chapter of more than a decade of contentious litigation surrounding the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") and ensuing bankruptcy of media conglomerate Tribune Co. ("Tribune"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed lower court rulings that Tribune's 2012 chapter 11 plan did not unfairly discriminate against senior noteholders who contended that their distributions were reduced because the plan improperly failed to strictly enforce pre-bankruptcy subordination agreements. In In re Tribune Co., 972 F.3d 228 (3d Cir.