The government has indicated that it will raise the financial threshold for creditors petitioning for an individual's bankruptcy through an amendment to the Insolvency Act 1986. From 1 October 2015 a creditor will need to be owed at least £5,000, rather than £750 as at present. This change, coming very shortly after the recent abolition of the remedy of distress, will inevitably serve to further limit landlords' armouries when attempting to recover arrears from tenants.

Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)

An investigation is to be carried out into the causes of the bankruptcy of OW Bunker (“OWB”), the largest ship fuel supplier in the world.  Investigators from two Danish law firms and Ernst & Young will try to establish the reasons for the failure of OWB less than a year after it was listed at a value of $1 billion. OWB has blamed its failure on hedging losses of $150 million, attributable to the falling price of oil and on a credit line estimated at between $120 and $130 million given by OWB’s subsidiary in Singapore, Dynamic Oil Trading (“DOT

In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.

D & D Wines was a leading distributor of wines, which went into administration. One of its clients was an Australian wine producer called Angove. Two of Angove’s customers, who dealt through D & D, paid the company shortly after it had gone into administration and after Angove had terminated the agency agreement. Despite this, the Court of Appeal ruled that the money belonged to the company in administration for the benefit of all its creditors and was not held on trust for Angove.

A bankruptcy court in Pennsylvania recently held that trade creditors who supplied goods to a debtor prior to its bankruptcy filing were not entitled to administrative priority status under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) because the goods were “received by the debtor” at the time they were placed on the vessel at the port overseas more than 20 days before the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, although the debtor took possession of the goods within the 20 day period.  In re World Imports, Ltd. — B.R. —-, 2014 WL 2750258 (Bankr. E.D. Pa., June 18, 2014).

Re Christophorus 3 Limited [2014] EWHC 1162 (Ch)

Successor liability is often a concern for the acquirer when purchasing substantially all of a seller’s assets.  While this risk is well known, the circumstances under which an acquirer will be found liable under the theory of successor liability are less clear.  The recent decision in Call Center Techs., Inc. v Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Pub. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29057, 2014 WL 85934 (D. Conn. 2014), sheds helpful light on this issue by defining the continuity of enterprise theory of successor liability.

Law360, New York (March 25, 2014, 1:21 PM ET) -- On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff-appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. v. Jacob J. Lew et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff- appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. v. Jacob J. Lew et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).