On August 2, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553, (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012).

As NASA engineers breathe a sigh of relief after the “seven minutes of terror” that was the rover Curiosity’s landing on Mars, recipients of payments under commodity forward contracts can—at least in the Fifth Circuit—rest assured that agreements that meet the basic definition of forward contract contained in section 101(25) of the Bankruptcy Code will be protected from preference liability should their counterparties find themselves in bankruptcy. Last Thursday, in Lightfoot v. MXEnegry Electric, Inc. (In re MBS Management Servs., Inc.). No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. Aug.

Over the last few years, the courts have shown themselves to be increasingly unwilling to interfere in the level of liquidated damages set in building contracts. The courts have taken this position predominantly because the agreed level of liquidated damages forms part of the commercial bargain reached between the parties at the outset of the contract. However, employers should still carefully calculate the level of liquidated damages inserted into the contract for the following reasons:

For those institutions carrying out building projects at the moment the recent news that the holding company of Currie & Brown was in administration at the time of its acquisition by Middle East-based consultant Dar Group raised fresh concerns that there may be more victims of this period of economic instability. The insolvency of a consultant can be as harmful to a project as that of the main contractor. Well-drafted documentation is essential to protect an employer, as is ensuring that all requests for payment are justified.

For landlords, a tenant in administration is just about your worst nightmare. A moratorium prevents you from suing for outstanding arrears or forfeiting the lease and you may be left with an empty unit generating no income.  

Now it seems if administrators are using your premises, the rent might not even be paid as an expense simply because of when they were appointed. So what has happened?

The recent news that the holding company of Currie & Brown was in administration at the time of its acquisition by Middle East-based consultant Dar Group raises fresh concerns that there may be more victims of this period of economic instability.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much awaited decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. ______ (2012). The noteworthy decision resolves any uncertainty surrounding a secured creditor’s right to credit bid in a sale under a chapter 11 plan which arose after cases like Philadelphia Newspapers 599 F.3d 298 (3d Cir. 2010) curtailed the right.

TOUSA involved one of the largest fraudulent transfer litigations in bankruptcy history.  The Bankruptcy Court agreed with the Unsecured Creditors’ Committee that both the so-called “New Lenders” and the “Transeastern Lenders” received fraudulent transfers as part of a July 31, 2007 financing transaction.  The District Court reversed in a scathing opinion, but today the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the District Court and reinstated the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion in its entirety.  The opinion can be found

The Insolvency Service has recently published a helpful guide about the restrictions on the re-use of a name previously used by a company, which has gone into liquidation. Directors of companies in insolvent liquidation need to take special care, as the restriction applies to them personally and contravention is a criminal offence. The restriction lasts for five years from the date of liquidation and, save in limited circumstances, a director is not allowed to be a director of or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a limited company that uses a "prohibited name".