Since the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (“1999 Act”), it has been understood that the rights of a bankrupt under a tax approved pension plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate and do not vest in his Trustee in Bankruptcy.
That said, where a Bankrupt was already drawing an income from his pension, his Trustee could seek an Income Payments Order over that income.
It has not taken long for another bankruptcy court to question the propriety of allowing secured creditors to credit bid their loans. You may recall that in the case of Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et al. a Delaware bankruptcy court limited a creditor’s ability to credit bid based on self-serving testimony from a competing bidder that it would not participate in an auction absent the court capping the secured creditor’s credit bid.
The Insolvency Rules 1986 (“IR 1986”) are to be replaced in their entirety by the Insolvency Rules 2015 (“IR 2015”).
The Insolvency Service has been running a long-standing ‘modernisation’ project to consolidate the 23 amending instruments to IR 1986 and provide a number of substantive amendments to existing insolvency law and practice.
In a recent decision that has captured the attention of the U.S. secondary loan market, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington starkly concluded that hedge funds “that acquire distressed debt and engage in predatory lending” were not eligible buyers of a loan under a loan agreement because they were not “financial institutions” within the Court’s understanding of the phrase.
A recent decision in the bankruptcy case of Fisker Automotive Holdings, Inc., et al. has called into question a long-held belief that secured creditors hold dear: that debt purchased at a discount can nonetheless be credit bid at its full face amount at a collateral sale. While it remains to be seen how other courts will interpret Fisker, this decision has the potential to restrict participation in Bankruptcy Code section 363 sales and dampen liquidity in the robust secondary markets.
The Court of Appeal has handed down an important judgment for landlords and insolvency practitioners, in the case of Jervis v Pillar Denton; re Games Station (“Game”).
Recently, in connection with the bankruptcy case of KB Toys, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disallowed a claim held by a claim purchaser, citing that the original holder of the claim had received a preference payment prior to the bankruptcy case.1 The ruling affirmed an earlier decision of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, which we discussed in a previous memorandum2, in which the Bankruptcy Court held that (i) a claim in the hands of a transferee has the same rights and disabilities as the claim had in the hands of the original claimant; and (ii) disabilities attach t
The impending abolishment of the ancient common law self-help remedy of distress will affect landlords, tenants and insolvency practitioners.
What is Distress?
The ability of landlords to recover arrears of rent without going to Court, by instructing bailiffs to seize, impound and sell certain goods located at the premises and belonging to the tenant. This right will remain until 6 April 2014, but after that date distress will no longer be available and commercial landlords will instead have to rely on Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (“CRAR”).
According to The Times (25 October 2013) the British Property Federation has advised landlords to take larger rent deposits to reduce losses caused by the insolvency of a tenant.
The Insolvency Service have recently reported that they are planning to launch proposals to simplify and re-order the existing Insolvency Rules, replacing them with a single set of rules fit for the 21st century. The present rules have been in force since 1986, providing a framework for the Insolvency Act 1986.