In an important Court of Appeal (CoA) decision handed down on 1 March 2017, the CoA has clarified the position for banks, lenders and insolvency practitioners regarding realisation of assets after certificates of completion have been issued in individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs).
On January 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-anticipated opinion in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 1 ruling that Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b) (the “Act”), prohibits only non-consensual amendments to core payment terms of bond indentures.
On August 2, 2016, the IRS issued proposed regulations taking aim at valuation discounts with respect to closely-held interests for gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax purposes. If adopted, even with clarifying language, the proposed regulations will impact certain estate planning strategies.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.1 The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles. GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi
In the week that Leicester City overcame odds of 5000/1 to be crowned Premier League champions, the insurance market was (almost) as astounded at the news that the long-awaited Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, which received Royal Assent on 25 March 2010, will be coming into force on 1 August 2016.
Recent developments in landlord and tenant law concerning the position of the outgoing tenant’s guarantor on the assignment of the lease can only be described as ‘bonkers’. A few years ago, the Good Harvest and House of Fraser cases confirmed that a parent company could not guarantee both of its subsidiaries on an intra-group assignment. Last month, in the EMI case, the High Court has confirmed that the assignment of a lease to the tenant’s guarantor is similarly void.
Happy anniversary
On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it. The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re Tribune Co.
Draft regulations were laid before Parliament on 25 February 2016 to amend the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010
The Act, when it comes into force, will make it more straightforward for claimants to cut through directly to insurers when policyholders become insolvent. It has been six years since the Act was passed. These proposed amendments are another step on what has been a slow road towards bringing the Act into force.
1 hilldickinson.com Pricing Defended claims Enforcement Insolvency Key contacts Commercial Recovery proceedings debt recovery 2016 2 Outstanding debt, irrespective of its amount, is detrimental to operations. For large organisations, unpaid monies add up and can considerably reduce real profit. For a small to medium-sized enterprise, a reduction in liquid assets may critically affect its ability to survive. Recovering debts has a significant and positive impact on a business.
The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. [1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.
Background