We previously reported on Raithatha v Williamson (4 April 2012) where the High Court held that a bankrupt’s right to draw a pension was subject to an income payments order (“IPO”) even if the individual had yet to draw his pension. This judgment represented a significant departure from previous practice under the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 which protected future pension rights from IPOs and distinguished them from pensions in payment. It also effectively allowed a trustee in bankruptcy to compel a bankrupt to draw pension against his wishes.

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in RadLAX Gateway Hotel over whether the Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor in a chapter 11 case to sell encumbered assets without providing its secured lenders an opportunity to credit bid their debt. 

Opposing lawyers for Jefferson County, the debtor in the largest Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy case ever filed, and the holders of its sewer warrants squared off last week in the ongoing fight over control of the County’s sewer system and the right to its revenues. (Expert witness

The EU insolvency law has resulted in insolvent debtors shopping for a better jurisdiction in which to become bankrupt.  This article examines why and how.

Why?

The EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 (the ECIR), came into effect in May 2002, providing a framework for the national jurisdictions to work together by recognition of each states insolvency mechanisms.  However the EC Regulation does not harmonise substantive differences in insolvency law between the subscribing nations.

U.S.

We have been following the saga of the case brought by Irving Picard, the trustee overseeing the Bernard Madoff bankruptcy liquidation proceeding, against the owners of the NY Mets, Saul Katz and Fred Wilpon.

Various media outlets reported on the March 2, 2012 decision of the General Court of the European Union partially upholding ING Groep NV’s challenge to the restructuring terms resulting from state aid measures imposed by EU regulators after the 2008 financial crisis.  According to Bloomberg

On the surface, Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), had a very good day. Judge Jed S.

IN RE: RIVER EAST PLAZA, LLC (January 19, 2012)

When River East Plaza LLC defaulted on its mortgage in early 2009, LNV Corp., which held the first mortgage, started foreclosure proceedings. Shortly before the scheduled sale of the property, River East filed for bankruptcy. In its plan, it proposed to exchange LNV's lien for one that was an "indubitable equivalent" under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii). Bankruptcy Judge Wedoff (N.D. Ill.) rejected the plan and dismissed the petition. River East brought a direct appeal under section 158(d)(2)(A).

Regulation 7 of TUPE states that a dismissal will be automatically unfair if the main reason for dismissal is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not an economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce (‘ETO reason’). This provision has caused some uncertainty where employees are dismissed by an administrator in order to make a business more attractive to a prospective (but as yet unknown) purchaser.