Usually, a Fixed Charge Receiver will not be liable to pay business rates. However, there are some exceptions and in some important areas the law is unclear.

Occupied Property: Limited Exposure

To be liable for business rates a party must be in occupation of the Property. This is a matter of fact and degree. Generally, the position is clear although there can be issues for example where more than one party is entitled to occupation.

Recent legislative reform in the water sector has expanded the special administration regime and there are further changes on the horizon

Next month marks the hotly anticipated sanction hearing for the Thames Water restructuring plan. We take this opportunity to look back at the key legislative changes made last year, as well as those earmarked for the future.

2024 legislative changes

New legislation was introduced last year to amend the special administration regime for the water sector.

The key changes to the existing regime were as follows:

We examine the findings of the High Court’s decisions and discuss the lessons which directors of distressed businesses should take from them

The collapse of BHS in April 2016 remains one of the most extraordinary corporate failures in recent memory. Eight years on from the commencement of insolvency proceedings, and following a lengthy trial, the High Court has issued an expansive judgment on claims brought by the joint liquidators of four companies in the group against two former directors.

Factual background

In a sudden and stunning collapse, FTX, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency exchange, run by 30-year-old Sam Bankman-Fried along with more than 130 entities affiliated with FTX, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in Delaware on Friday.[1] Separately, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas appointed a Bahamas-based provisional liquidator for the controlling FTX entity and froze its assets along with

On Aug. 30, 2021, in a significant decision that paves the way for additional substantial recoveries for the victims of Bernard L. Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals preserved the ability of Irving H. Picard, SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), to pursue $3.75 billion of stolen customer property currently in the hands of participants in the global financial markets.

On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.

In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).