The implications of taking an appointment over an insolvent business which is regulated by environmental law can be far reaching. Environmental regulation has become more stringent and the sanctions for breach can leave the IP exposed to liability, including (amongst other things) costs sanctions.

The main environmental regimes referred to in this update are the contaminated land and water pollution regimes.

Insolvency procedures involving companies are complex and generally take a long time to complete. There is plenty of jargon which adds to the confusion, whereas all that an unsecured creditor usually wants to know is how to make a claim for the monies owed to him by the company, to whom the claim should be made, how long it will take to decide the claim and whether there is a possibility of recovering any monies from a company which is obviously experiencing financial difficulties.

The underlying policy of the Insolvency Act 1986 is that all assets of an insolvent organisation must be made available for distribution amongst its creditors. However, the courts also have the power to prevent parties from contracting out of the statutory regime. This long established common law principle known as the anti-deprivation principle has been used by the courts over the years to strike down contractual provisions which attempt to do just that. The principle has received an airing in two recent High Court decisions.

In the continuing uncertainty of the current economic climate, and with a tough financial regime introduced by the new government, landlords may still find themselves faced with an insolvent tenant.

The law has for years tried to grapple with the Gordian Knot between protecting a debtor’s assets for realisation and distribution to his creditors and protecting third parties who enter into transactions with the debtor after the bankruptcy process has been initiated, completely unaware of that process.

I. Introduction Readers may be familiar with the use in the UK of Schemes of Arrangement to achieve closure of insurance and reinsurance business.

I. Introduction

When entering into a reinsurance agreement, a ceding company and a reinsurer may also enter into a related reinsurance trust agreement  

In an October 13, 2009 decision involving bankrupt homebuilder TOUSA, Inc. (“TOUSA”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Court”) avoided as fraudulent transfers certain liens given and debt obligations incurred by several of TOUSA’s subsidiaries to a syndicate of lenders who provided $500 million of new loans to TOUSA. In addition, the Court ordered those lenders, and others that received the proceeds of the new loans, to repay hundreds of millions of dollars to the bankrupt estates of these subsidiaries.

The recent Scottish Court Opinion on Scottish Lion’s proposed solvent scheme of arrangement,1 in which it was held that to sanction a solvent scheme there must be a “problem requiring a solution” and, in effect, unanimous creditor approval, was followed by a short hearing on Wednesday 14th October in which Lord Glennie said that he would dismiss the petition for the scheme.

On September 15, 2009, in an order read from the bench, the Honorable James M. Peck, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of NewYork, and the presiding judge in the Chapter 11 proceedings of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) and other associated Lehman Brothers United States entities, held a key provision of the standard ISDA Master Agreement unenforceable in a bankruptcy context.