Recently, two courts of appeal dismissed as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) appeals of orders authorizing the sale of assets. The courts’ analysis focused on whether granting the appellant’s relief from the lower courts’ order would affect the asset sale. Thus the trend in the appellate courts is that only appeals that will not affect the sale itself (such as a dispute over the distribution of sale proceeds) are not subject to being dismissed as moot.
Numerous bankruptcy trustees have attempted to claw back from colleges and universities — and even from private elementary and secondary schools — the tuition payments that parents made on behalf of their children, when the parents subsequently filed for bankruptcy.
On 24 December 2013 the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 was signed into law by the President. The purpose of the legislation is to expedite a number of amendments to existing legislation pending the enactment of the Companies Bill.
Circuit Court Examinership
124 members of the Element Six pension scheme are suing the trustees of the scheme in the Commercial Court for alleged breach of duty arising out of the decision to close the scheme with a significant deficit. The members claim that the trustees breached their duty to the members by failing to demand that the employer fully fund the deficit in the scheme before wind up. A number of general issues relating to the obligations of trustees were raised during the 3-week hearing of the case.
Background
In determining their preference liability exposure, creditors typically consider whether they have provided any subsequent “new value” to the debtor after they have received an alleged preferential payment. Debtors and trustees frequently take the position that creditors cannot use as a defense any new value that has been repaid to the creditor post-petition through critical vendor payments or pursuant to Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy courts have ruled differently on this issue.
Borrowers are increasingly seeking to challenge or frustrate the validity of an appointment of a receiver on technical grounds. While each case will be determined on its own merits and facts, a recent decision of the High Court is illustrative of the Court’s attitude towards some such arguments.
Due to inconsistent decisions in the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, there has been some uncertainty as to whether a purchaser of a bankruptcy claim is subject to defenses that a debtor would have against the original creditor. Recently, this issue was settled with respect to cases filed in the Third Circuit.
On October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a Seventh Circuit decision1 in the Castleton Plaza, LP case, which held that a new value plan proposed by the debtor in which an equity-holder’s spouse would provide a cash infusion to the debtor in exchange for 100 percent of the reorganiz
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that a channeling injunction pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
The Government, has announced that it is examining potential changes to the law to clarify the position of residential tenants where a receiver is appointed to rented accommodation. Concern has been expressed that there is a lack of clarity as to whether a receiver appointed to such a property assumes any of the responsibilities of the landlord or whether he should be solely concerned with recovering value from the asset, as would be conventional.