From 6 April 2014 Industrial and Provident Societies (IPSs) will be able to enter administration or make a voluntary arrangement with creditors. Formerly winding up was the only option for an insolvent IPS. 

This is a significant development as it extends the corporate rescue culture to these societies, which would otherwise face closure in times of financial distress. 

What is an Industrial and Provident Society? 

On 24 February 2014 the Court of Appeal delivered its long awaited judgment in the GAME Group litigation (Pillar Denton Limited & Ors -v- Jervis & Ors). 

This is an extremely important decision and will affect every trading administration where the company is a tenant. 

Recently, two courts of appeal dismissed as moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) appeals of orders   authorizing the sale of assets. The courts’ analysis focused on whether granting the appellant’s relief  from the lower courts’ order would affect the asset sale. Thus the trend in the appellate courts is that only appeals that will not affect the sale itself (such as a dispute over the distribution of sale proceeds) are not subject to being dismissed as moot.

Numerous bankruptcy trustees have attempted to claw back from colleges and universities — and even from private elementary and secondary schools — the tuition payments that parents made on behalf of their children, when the parents subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The Court of Appeal decided yesterday that it couldn’t make a ruling on the correct way to calculate the collective redundancies threshold without making a reference to the European Court of Justice. Employers will therefore have to wait a considerable while longer before the law is clarified.

Not many people shed a tear for the players when a football club goes into administration. Instead the press always quote how much money the St John’s Ambulance Service loses. The realities are in any football insolvency the creditors (including the players) lose out and the players involved are usually at the lower level clubs. 

In determining their preference liability exposure, creditors typically consider whether they have provided any subsequent “new value” to the debtor after they have received an alleged preferential payment. Debtors and trustees frequently take the position that creditors cannot use as a defense any new value that has been repaid to the creditor post-petition through critical vendor payments or pursuant to Section 503(b)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy courts have ruled differently on this issue.

Not many people shed a tear for the players when a club goes into administration. But the realities are that the creditors lose out and that the players involved in the majority of cases are at the lower level clubs. Out of the 60+ club insolvencies we have been involved in, only one was in the Premier League.

Footballers’ salaries differ wildly. The PFA published a league table in The Mail on Sunday recently stating average weekly earnings for players were as follows:

Due to inconsistent decisions in the Second Circuit and Third Circuit, there has been some uncertainty as to whether a purchaser of a bankruptcy claim is subject to defenses that a debtor would have against the original creditor. Recently, this issue was settled with respect to cases filed in the Third Circuit.

On October 7, 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to review a Seventh Circuit decision¹ in the Castleton Plaza, LP case, which held that a new value plan proposed by the debtor in which an equity-holder’s spouse would provide a cash infusion to the debtor in exchange for 100 percent of the reorganiz