Legislation soon to take force creates a new special administration regime for private providers of social housing, introducing changes that will transform restructuring in the sector.
The linked Mintz Levin client advisory discusses a recent Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held a “make-whole” optional redemption premium to be due upon a refinancing of corporate debt following its automatic acceleration upon bankruptcy.
When this topic was last considered two years ago, there was a real danger of pension rights (previously thought of as sacrosanct) being within the reach of trustees in bankruptcy by way of an income payments order (IPO). There were also two conflicting first instance decisions in play. The issue? Whether a pension entitlement capable of drawdown by election, but not yet in payment, can fall within the definition of income in section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86), and so be the potential subject of an IPO.
Savers who become bankrupt but have not yet drawn their pensions will not have to hand them to creditors after a ruling of the Court of Appeal put an end to fears that pension pots were at risk.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling on Horton v Henry, originally heard in 2014, settling legal difficulties arising from a conflicting judgment of Raithatha v Williamson (2012); and the introduction of the pension freedoms.
In a recent decision (“Energy Future Holdings”) poised to have wide-reaching implications, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and the District Courts to hold that a debtor cannot use a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to escape liability for a “make-whole” premium if express contractual language requires such payment when the borrower makes an optional redemption prior to a date certain.
The Housing and Planning Act changes what happens to insolvent housing associations, says Séamas Gray in an article for Inside Housing.
Traditionally, when a company becomes insolvent, it enters one of several types of insolvency processes and its assets are typically sold to the highest bidder to raise as much money as possible to distribute to the company’s creditors.
In relation to a housing association, this might well mean a sale outside the regulated sector with the knock-on effect of an immediate reduction in available social housing.
Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”
A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.
In an article for the LexisNexis ‘On the edge’ series of briefings, which highlight areas of legislation that may not fall with the everyday work of insolvency practitioners, Pat Saini and Séamas Gray offer guidance on immigration law.
Why is immigration law relevant to insolvency practitioners and their staff?
Legislation applicable generally
In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.