As we reported in April, the Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers facing insolvency. The Government has been seeking views on how well the requirements work both before an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to the failing company and after a formal appointment has been made. 

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.

Case: The joint administrators of African Minerals Limited (in administration) v Madison Pacific Trust Limited and Shangdong Steel Hong Kong Zengli Limited (HCMP 865 of 2015)

On 26 March 2015, the Deregulation Bill and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill received Royal Assent.  These Acts make a number of important changes to the law affecting directors, insolvency law and regulation. 

The changes affect (among other things) directors’ liabilities, the powers of administrators and the rights of creditors. While some changes are relevant to all those advising companies and directors, others are of interest principally to insolvency officeholders.

Case: (The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (Appellants) v Olympic Airlines SA (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 27)

On 9 April the Polish Parliament adopted a bill implementing the so-called “second chance” policy for businesses, pursued at the EU level.

The Act introduces a clear separation between restructuring proceedings and bankruptcy proceedings. As the latter are commonly perceived as stigmatising, the initiation of bankruptcy can hinder successful restructuring. The new Act introduces four new types of restructuring proceedings, i.e.:

The Supreme Court has held that, where a company had been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, the directors’ wrong-doing could not be attributed to the company to prevent it (or its liquidators) from bringing claims against the directors.