Appointing administrators out of court has been thrown into complete disarray following Sir Andrew Morritt’s comments in Minmar. In that case, he said a directors’ out of court appointment would have been invalid if the company had not been given notice of the intention to appoint administrators.

A common fact in any transaction, is the effect of human relations, daily life and commercial realities. The legal do's and don'ts are often overtaken by practicalities. An example is a need for a tenant to enter into occupation of premises.

The recent case of Mann Aviation Group (Engineering) Ltd (in Administration) v Longmint Aviation Limited Ltd dealt with the rights of an occupier going into possession of premises and paying rent, but without any form of written lease or licence.

A federal district court, applying Pennsylvania law, has held that the insolvency exclusion in an insurance agency’s professional liability policy excused the insurer from the duty to defend the agency in lawsuits alleging that it had caused employee benefit plans that it created to be underfunded.  ACE Capital Limited v. Morgan Waldon Ins. Management, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-128, 2011 WL 5914275 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011).

According to the credit insurer, Euler Helmes, there were more insolvencies in construction than in any other sector during the first six months of 2011.

Where an insolvency affects consultants and contractors mid project then clients will be concerned about the possible ramifications for their projects.  What are some of the key considerations for a client in this scenario.

On October 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally.  At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code, § 365(n), which limits a debtor's right to reject intellectual property licenses in bankruptcy and generally provides that, in the event of a rejection, the licensee may elect either to treat the license as terminated or retain its rights for the duration of the license.

On Oct. 28, 2011, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an opinion with significant ramifications for any holder of a patent license that operates internationally. At issue was an important protection afforded to patent licensees under the United States Bankruptcy Code - § 365(n).

New rules imposing extra regulation on pre-packaged insolvency sales by liquidators and administrators were expected to go live in October, but they will not now come into force before April 2012, according to the Insolvency Service. The delay is apparently due to the continued debate on the proposal for liquidators and administrators to have to give a three day notice period of a proposed sale aimed at giving creditors a chance to "express concerns ... or make a higher offer for the assets".

The City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania—the state's capital—filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on Wednesday October 12, 2011, indicating that it owed fewer than 50 creditors more than $545 million.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, applying Ohio law, has held that a dishonesty exclusion barred coverage under primary and excess directors and officers (D&O) policies for the Wrongful Acts of the principals of a bankrupt company, all of whom were criminally convicted of securities fraud and related crimes.  The Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Great American Insurance Co., et. al., 2011 WL 4348128 (S.D. Ohio Sept.

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, applying federal law, has held that certain lawsuits brought by a bankruptcy trustee were related claims, even though they alleged unique causes of action, because they were based upon the same course of conduct.  The court also found that the trustee was pursuing claims both on behalf of the policyholder-debtor and its subsidiaries, and therefore the application of the insured versus insured exclusion was “unclear.”  Nonetheless, the court found that the individual insureds were entitled to 100% of their defense cos