A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).

On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote  loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy  a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to  avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage,  they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited  two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage.  Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.

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

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.

After a plan of reorganization is confirmed by the bankruptcy court, the plan proponents often seek to consummate the confirmed plan as soon as possible by implementing a series of restructuring transactions. Meanwhile, and objecting party has the statutory right to appeal the bankruptcy court's confirmation rulings. Absent the entry of a court-ordered stay of implementation, however, the plan proponents may "win the race" and implement the transactions before the appellate court can rule on any appeals.

In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.

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.

In In re Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd [2013] IEHC 219, the High Court held that it has jurisdiction to wind-up a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, but with its principal place of business in Ireland.

In its decision in In re Davis Joinery Ltd [2013] IEHC 353, the High Court identified the difficulties that employees of corporate employers may face when their employer ceases trading without taking any steps to formally wind-up the company.

In December 2012 the European Commission issued a policy communication called “A new European Approach to Business Failure and Insolvency” and a proposal to amend the EU Insolvency Regulation

The proposed new European approach to business insolvency focuses on helping sound business to survive, while at the same time protecting creditors’ rights.