On January 17, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit BAP”) rendered its opinion in Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance v. OPK Biotech, LLC (In re PBBPC, Inc.), BAP No. MB 12-042 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Jan.

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

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

Summary

The Second

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.

On August 2, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Lightfoot v. MXEnergy Elec., Inc. (In re MBS Mgmt. Servs., Inc.), Case No. 11-30553 (5th Cir. 2012), holding that a real estate management company’s electricity supply contract qualified as a “forward contract”, payments on account of which are protected from avoidance as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions.

Financial support directions and insolvency: the Regulator's statement