A first in the UK – a restructuring plan under Part 26A to the Companies Act 2006 (Restructuring Plan) has been proposed by a project company in a private finance initiative (PFI) project after a convening hearing was held in the High Court in late May.

The Restructuring Plan seeks to compromise both current and future liabilities arising from a PFI project agreement with an NHS Trust. The hearing to sanction the plan will now be held in July.

The U.S. Supreme Court held last week in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. that an insurance company with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” with the right to object to a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

Section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides:

The creditors in the bankruptcy case of insurtech Vesttoo have filed a request with the court to allow them to conduct legal discovery on China Construction Bank (CCB), the main bank named in the letter of credit (LOC) reinsurance collateral fraud.

Since the first Johnson & Johnson talc bankruptcy was filed in 2021, Judge Michael Kaplan has faced countless disagreements in the US Bankruptcy Court. These range from discovery fights, disputes over administration of tens of thousands of individual claims and all-out conflict over the total amount in controversy.

There will also be continued consequences arising out of the ongoing downturn in the economy. In the four quarters ending Q3 2023, the construction industry reported 4,276 cases of insolvency to the Insolvency Service, equating to 18% of all insolvencies reported (when an industry was recorded) during this period.

October found relief for both non-executive director’s and the D&O insurance market as the Carillion non-executive director 'test case' was abandoned the day before trial.

In Denaxe Limited v Cooper & Rubin, the Court of Appeal has recently considered the important issue of immunity from suit against a party who has previously sought the Court’s approval for a particular course of action. This is commonly utilised by trustees (under CPR 64) and insolvency practitioners (for example under CPR 69 and Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986) when faced with difficult questions concerning entitlements and distributions to different classes of beneficiary or creditor.

This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its latest bankruptcy opinion in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s rule against invalidating 363 sales after appeal is not an iron-clad jurisdictional bar, but rather a mere statutory limitation.[1]

Purchasers often relish the prospect of buying distressed assets in a bankruptcy proceeding. Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a buyer may obtain ownership of bankruptcy estate assets “free and clear of any interest” (assuming certain conditions are met), and also be reasonably confident that the sale will not be reversed on appeal. But the U.S. Supreme Court may have now tempered that confidence. In its recent, unanimous opinion, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, No. 21-1270 (Apr.