This update focusses upon two recent High Court decisions dealing with (respectively) the ability of the court to retrospectively extend court-appointed receiverships, and the issue of whether COMI had shifted to England for a German national seeking bankruptcy here.

Extension of court-appointed receiverships

The case of Bank of Ireland v (1) Edeneast (2) Cosgrove and (3) Maguire (17/09/2013) concerned an application by the bank to retrospectively continue and extend the appointment of a courtappointed receiver.

This update focusses on a range of issues affecting IPs from the past two months, covering the consultation on fees announced in February, the HMRC announced changes to the VAT deregistration regime, when accountants may be required to produce documents under Sections 235 and 256 of the Insolvency Act, and a recent Court of Appeal decision on when a company may be considered to be insolvent for the purpose of Section 238 actions

Consultation on the regulation of Insolvency Practitioners and IPs’ fees

Despite the absence of any provision in the Bankruptcy Code expressly authorizing the recharacterization of a debt claim to an equity interest, it generally is well-established that recharacterization is within the broad powers afforded a bankruptcy court under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and is necessary for the proper application of the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.1  In a recharacterization analysis, a

bankruptcy court ignores the labels of a transaction, examines the facts, and determines whether a

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of how much protection is required for a secured creditor to be adequately protected. Banker’s Bank of Kansas, N.A. v. Bluejay Properties, LLC (In re Bluejay Properties, LLC), Bankr. No. 12-22680 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2014)(unpublished).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the “Seventh Circuit”) recently adopted a broad reading of the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) § 546(e), which protects from avoidance “settlement payments” and transfers made in connection with a “securities contract,” among other transfers.1 In FCStone, the Seventh Circuit reversed the United States District Court for t

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.

The Court of Appeal in Pillar Denton Ltd & Others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison and (3) Game Retail Ltd ([2014] EWCA Civ 180) yesterday overruled previous High Court authority, deciding that rent should be treated as an expense of the administration based on actual usage and not on when the rent falls due. What does this mean for practitioners?

The background

Landlords will be relieved that the Court of Appeal has closed a legal loophole in a test case arising out of the administration of the Game group of Companies – Pillar Denton Ltd & 5 others v (1) Jervis (2) Maddison (3) Game Retail Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 180.

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.

What happens to funds held in escrow when the paying entity goes into administration?

The background

Escrow mechanisms are familiar territory for most practitioners. The case of Bristol Alliance Nominee No. 1 Ltd and others v Neil Andrew Bennett and others [2013] EWCA Civ 1626 explores what happens when funds are held in escrow at a time when the paying entity goes into administration.