A new Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP16) is expected to be published in March 2015, aimed at improving the framework and operation of pre-pack administrations. This follows the Graham Review, and its report published in June 2014. In this article, we explore the existing pre-pack structure, its shortcomings and how the changes expected might affect insolvency practitioners and their insurers.

Background

There has been recent high-level review of the application of the doctrine of ex turpi causa to claims involving fraudulent directors, in the context of insolvency litigation. The doctrine defined at its simplest is that no action can be founded on illegal or immoral conduct – a legal form of fair play. In October 2014 the Supreme Court heard the appeal in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (Bilta).

In our recent article of 4 November 2014 we referred to a new case where the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson would be reconsidered. 

On 17 December 2014 the High Court handed down judgment in the case of Horton v Henry. The decision has been highly anticipated. 

The High Court has declined to follow an earlier decision and ruled that a trustee in bankruptcy could not gain access to pensions benefits that were not already in payment.

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code that may affect secured creditors.^[1] In 2012, the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”). The ABI Commission is composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.

In June 2014, the new insolvency complaints gateway celebrated its first birthday. This was followed by a report assessing its performance against a number of rather challenging ambitions. We analyse the report’s findings and the effect of the gateway to date on consumers, insolvency practitioners and their insurers.

Background

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court held that under the Delaware Uniform Commercial Code, the subjective intent of a secured party is irrelevant in determining the effectiveness of a UCC-3 termination statement if the secured party authorized its filing.[1]  

Background

Recent case law reminds practitioners and lenders to pay careful attention when drafting prepayment premium provisions in debt instruments or risk having the premiums disallowed in a borrower’s bankruptcy case.

When trying to enforce security over property, it is important for a lender to consider the order in which the proceeds of sale will be distributed – a matter decided by the priority of any charges that exist. The general rule is that whichever legal charge is entered onto the charges register has priority, but this isn’t always the case.   

Scenarios where priority may be different