Can an equity investor who directs an insider to contribute "new value" to a debtor under a plan of reorganization, so as to retain his interest in the company, avoid an express market test for that new equity? The answer to that question is a resounding "no," according to Chief Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Castleton Plaza, LP, Case No. 12 Civ. 2639, 2013 WL 537269 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2013).

How will it impact on pensions?

Under the Bankruptcy Act 1988, the general rule is that all property “belonging” to a person adjudicated bankrupt on the date of adjudication vested in the Official Assignee. The extent to which this rule extended to pension assets depended on the type of pension vehicle the person being declared bankrupt participated in and the actual terms of the pension scheme or policy.

The 1988 Act has now been amended to include detailed and prescriptive provisions relating to the treatment of pension assets on bankruptcy.

There have been a number of recent developments regarding the current system of examinership and the legislation governing repossession and other lender’s rights. Norman Fitzgerald, Partner and Head of Eversheds’ Insolvency Group, discusses the proposed amendments and their likely impact.

Circuit Court Provisions for Examinership

Is a bankrupt pledgor legally bound to fulfill its promise to pledge a gift; or will a nonprofit have a successful claim against a pledgor if there is a subsequent failure to make payment because of a bankruptcy filing? A district court in Arizona recently held that St. Joseph's, a nonprofit hospital, did not have an enforceable claim in Bashas' Inc.'s bankruptcy for Bashas' $50,000 charitable pledge because of Bashas' bankruptcy. In re Bashas' Inc., 2012 WL 5289501 (D. Ariz. Oct. 25, 2012).

One of the most powerful tools a chapter 11 debtor has is the ability to assume or reject executory contracts under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In bankruptcy parlance, when a debtor “rejects” an executory contract, it is considered as though the debtor breached the agreement as of the date it filed for bankruptcy and sheds the debtor’s obligation to perform under the rejected contract.  The non-debtor party receives a claim for damages arising from the debtor’s breach; however, in many cases, it will be worth only pennies on the dollar.  The converse of rejection is

Azevedo and another v Imcopa Importacao, Exportaacao E Industria De Oleos Ltda and others [2012] EWHC 1849 (Comm)

Summary

The recent TCC decision in Brit Inns Ltd (in liquidation) v. BDW Trading Ltd (Costs) [2012] EWHC 2489 (TCC) is a useful summary of the costs principles that will be applied where Claimants pursue inflated claims – either deliberately or through lack of sufficient care. The relevant principles will be:

Government’s plan to boost UK house building

Recently the Prime Minister announced a new housing and planning package that is intended to stimulate:

During the current economic slowdown businesses in many industries, including some in the industrial engineering sector, are struggling to make payments to suppliers; some have even gone into bankruptcy. However, under Polish law it is possible for a creditor to achieve some protection even if specific provisions are absent from the contract.

In a recent decision authored by Chief Judge Easterbrook, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC, Docket No. 11-3920 (7th Cir. July 9, 2012)) held that the licensee of a trademark does not necessarily lose the right to use the licensed marks when a debtor-licensor rejects the underlying license agreement in its bankruptcy case.  In so holding, the Court rejected a contrary decision reached by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Lubrizol Enterprises, Inc. v.