Energy Future Holdings (“EFH” or “Debtors”) has cleared all of the preliminary hurdles in its path as it moves towards the confirmation of its plan of reorganization (the “Plan”).

The English High Court in London Borough of Brent v Kane [2014] EWHC 4564 has held that legal advice taken in relation to various transactions which the claimant alleged had been made at an undervalue was not protected by privilege, as there was prima facie evidence that the purpose of the legal advice was to structure the transactions in order to allow the client to avoid or reduce the costs of a residential care home. 

Facts

Mediation has become an invaluable tool in large chapter 11 cases.

The Bill introduces key changes to the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. These include a new provision allowing for an independent review by the Circuit Court, if creditors such as the mortgage lender refuse a borrower’s proposal for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement to deal with unsustainable debts which include a mortgage on the borrower’s home.

For the second time in the past few months, Judge Christopher Sontchi has dashed the hopes of certain creditors in the Energy Future Holdings (“EFH”) chapter 11 case that they would be paid a make-whole premium worth over $400 million.

In the Matter of J.D Brian Limited (In Liquidation) T/A East Coast Print and Publicity, In the Matter of J.D. Brian Motors Limited (In Liquidation) T/A Belgard Motors and In the Matter of East Coast Car Parts Limited (In Liquidation) and In the Matter of the Companies Acts 1963 to 2009 (the Companies)

The EBA updated its Implementing Technical Standards (ITS) on supervisory reporting of liquidity coverage ratios (LCR) for EU credit institutions. The updated ITS includes new templates and instructions for credit institutions so as to ensure compliance with the European Commission's Delegated Act adopted in October 2014. In addition the ITS outline all the necessary steps needed for the calculation of the ratio. The amended ITS are only applicable to credit institutions and not to investment firms and will only become applicable following publication in the EU Official Journal.

The Supreme Court has not handled its recent major bankruptcy decisions well. The jurisdictional confusion engendered by its 2011 decision in Stern v.

The Department of Justice and Equality has announced that the Government is to introduce legislation before the summer recess giving Courts the power to review and, where appropriate, approve insolvency deals that have been rejected by banks. This process will represent a reform of the Personal Insolvency framework and "seeks to ensure that fair and sustainable deals are upheld for struggling borrowers willing to work their way out of difficulties with a view to keeping their family home."

Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.