I HAVE REQUESTED MY LANDLORD’S CONSENT TO SELL MY PHARMACY LEASE. THE LANDLORD HAS AGREED TO THE SALE BUT ON THE CONDITION THAT I AM A GUARANTOR FOR THE BUYER. IS THIS A REQUIREMENT UNDER MY LEASE?

The answer will depend on the terms of your lease. However, as a general rule, it is likely to be the case that the landlord can request such a guarantee.

This is the sixth in a series of alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies (the “Commission”). This alert covers the Commission’s recommendations regarding Chapter 11 plans of reorganization and Chapter 11 dismissal orders. It discusses the Commission’s proposed changes to plan confirmation and voting procedures, approving settlements contained in the plan, and releasing insiders from liability.

1. Recommended Changes to Confirmation and Voting Requirements.

The confusion over Bitcoin grows in the latest lawsuit brought in a California bankruptcy court by Trustee Mark Kasolas against Marc Lowe, a former employee of HashFast Technologies LLC.

The trustee alleges, among other things, that Lowe received from the bankrupt Bitcoin mining company fraudulent transfers which included 3,000 Bitcoin (“BTC”) in September 2013, valued at approximately $363,861.

Bankruptcy practitioners routinely advise secured creditor clients to file protective proofs of claim in bankruptcy proceedings despite those clients’ ability to ignore bankruptcy proceedings and decline filing claims without imperiling their lien due to the protections afforded by state law foreclosure rights.^[1] But a recent Ninth Circuit decision is causing attorneys and clients to reconsider whether this traditionally conservative approach is simply too risky in Chapter 13 cases. HSBC Bank v. Blendheim (In re Blendheim), No. 13-35412, 2015 WL 5730015 (9th Cir. Oct.

charlesrussellspeechlys.com Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales, registered number OC311850, and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is also licensed by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority in respect of its branch office in Doha. Any reference to a partner in relation to Charles Russell Speechlys LLP is to a member of Charles Russell Speechlys LLP or an employee with equivalent standing and qualifications.

From 1 November 2015, additional marketing and disclosure requirements will have to be satisfied by administrators completing pre-packaged sales.

BACKGROUND

The revised Statement of Insolvency Practice 16 (SIP 16) comes into force on 1 November 2015.

This is the fifth in a series of Alerts regarding the proposals made by the American Bankruptcy Institute Commission to Reform Chapter 11 Business Bankruptcies. This alert covers the Commission’s recommendations regarding the now predominant practice of selling substantially all of the debtor’s assets as a going concern, free of all claims, at the outset of a bankruptcy case. The process, known as a “363 Sale” for the Bankruptcy Code section that applies, has been hailed as a job-saving measure and condemned for giving all value to lenders and none to other creditors.

RE: BPE SOLICITORS & ANOTHER V GABRIEL [2015] UKSC 39 

The Supreme Court considered whether a trustee in bankruptcy who was considering adopting proceedings and lodging an appeal should be personally liable for historic adverse costs which had been awarded against the bankrupt prior to the commencement of the bankruptcy.

A Trustee in Bankruptcy’s liability for litigation costs

Stevensdrake Ltd v Stephen Hunt & Others [2015] EWHC 1527 (Ch)

Introduction

The High Court’s recent judgment in Stevensdrake Ltd -v- Stephen Hunt & Others highlights the need for Insolvency Practitioners to make sure that they carefully review conditional fee arrangements before entering into them and understand the potential contractual ramifications which may give rise to personal liability.

Background

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court decision in Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Nazir and others has provided office holders with greater (but not final) clarity on the operation of the ‘illegality defence’.

Many readers will be familiar with the concept of the illegality defence, otherwise referred to by the maxim “ex turpi causa non oritur actio”.  It is a rule of law which provides that a claimant cannot rely on its own wrongdoing to found a claim against another party.