The Third Circuit recently held that a bankruptcy court may confirm a Chapter 11 plan that includes a sale of assets in which secured creditors are not permitted to “credit bid” for the assets. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010). In that case, the debtors in possession, companies that own and operate the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News, moved the bankruptcy court to approve bid procedures for an auction of the debtors’ assets. Id. at 302.

A temporary Scheme was introduced in March 2009

The purpose of the temporary Scheme is to ensure that former employees of insolvent businesses receive a reasonable amount of compensation promptly, where they are owed money by their former employers.  

In a White Paper published on 03 December 2009 the States proposed to introduce a permanent Scheme. The deadline for respondents to submit their views was Friday 05 February 2010

In In re Kohls, 2007 LEXIS 76 (Bankr NDWVa 2007), the debtor filed this adversary proceeding against the Bank to cancel indebtedness and recover damages related to a $34,864 loan that the Bank made to the Debtor on the grounds that the loan was unconscionable at the time it was executed in violation of W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121.

Many bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the general tenet that an obligation secured only by a mortgage on the Debtor’s principal residence is immune from modification or avoidance by the Debtor. Sections 1123(b)(5) and 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protect residential mortgages from being “stripped-down” to the value of the subject real estate or subjecting the terms of the underlying obligation to modification.

What should be the remedy when a bankruptcy court holds that a security interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer, but the value of the security interest is not readily ascertainable? The Ninth Circuit recently addressed this issue in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re: Taylors), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5793 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court held that, since the value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable, the only available remedy is for the bankruptcy court to return the security interest itself, not its value, to the bankruptcy estate.

In the matter of a Representation by Computer Patent Annuities Holdings Limited and in the matter of Part 18A of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2010]JRC021

Introduction

This case, heard by the Royal Court in Jersey, involved the approval of a scheme of arrangement pursuant to Article 125 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (the "Companies Law"), together with the confirmation of a reduction of share capital.

Background

In the matter of Centurion Management Services Limited and Article 155 of the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 [2009]JRC227

Introduction

This judgment of the Royal Court in Jersey illustrates circumstances in which the court has been prepared to exercise its jurisdiction to order that a company be wound up on the grounds that it is just and equitable so to do.

Winding up a Jersey trust company on just and equitable grounds

The States of Jersey published a White Paper on a proposed statutory insolvency payments scheme (the "Scheme") on 3 December 2009, with a closing date for consultation responses of Friday 5 February 2010.

The White Paper states:

The Banking Business (Depositors Compensation) (Jersey) Regulations 2009 came into force on 6 November 2009, establishing a compensation scheme providing individual depositors with protection of up to £50,000 per person, per Jersey banking group, in the event of the bankruptcy of a Jersey bank.