Courts and professionals have wrestled for years with the appropriate approach to use in setting the interest rate when a debtor imposes a chapter 11 plan on a secured creditor and pays the creditor the value of its collateral through deferred payments under section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Bankruptcy Code. Secured lenders gained a major victory on October 20, 2017, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a market rate of interest is preferred to a so-called “formula approach” in chapter 11, when an efficient market exists.

Here is the scenario: You are a creditor. You hold clear evidence of a debt that is not disputed by the borrower, an individual. That evidence of debt could be in the form of a note, credit agreement or simply an invoice. You originated the debt, or perhaps instead it was transferred to you — it does not matter for this scenario. At some point the borrower fails to pay on the debt when due. For whatever reason, months or even years pass before you initiate collection efforts.

Editors’ Note: The Supreme Court’s Jevic ruling last spring remains a treasure trove of bankruptcy theory, suitable for the novice bankruptcy student and highly instructional for those of us who have practiced in chapter 11 for years. We at The Bankruptcy Cave like it so much that we will be offering a few more posts in upcoming weeks on the lower courts’ interpretation of Jevic since the spring, the continued efforts in Delaware to sidestep Jevic, and other important learning from the case.

Since May 2002, we have had a regime which ensures that an insolvency proceeding started in one of the EU’s member states is, without further formality, recognised in all other member states (except for Denmark) and which determines the law applicable to such proceedings. That regime is provided for in the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings (1346/2000/EC) (the EIR).

Annual Review of English Construction Law Developments May 2017 An international perspective CMS_LawTax_CMYK_28-100.eps Contents 3 Introduction 5 The interpretation of exclusion and limitation clauses: clarity restored 9 Good faith in the exercise of termination rights 13 Concurrent delay: recent developments and continued uncertainty 19 Contractual warranties and representations: telling the difference 23 On demand securities: the fraud exception in cases of legal uncertainty 31 On-demand securities: compliance with formalities and the doctrine of strict performance 37 Indirect and consequ

Overview

Court refuses application for pre-action disclosure of insurance policy

The High Court has refused an application for pre-action disclosure of the public liability insurance policy of a company that, if litigation were pursued against it, was likely to become insolvent.

Background

A draft bill on amendment to the Bankruptcy Code (Act XLIX of 1991 on bankruptcy proceedings and liquidation proceedings) was introduced into the Parliament on 12 April 2017 and is currently under review. If the draft bill was approved and published, the new rules would be applicable to the new liquidation proceedings and to new management liability related lawsuits. Lawmakers would grant a 2-month period to prepare for the changes.

Key areas for change are:

1. Fiduciary security interests would be elevated to the same level as pledge-type security

The recent Amendment on the Czech Insolvency Act (the “Amendment”) enters into force on 1 July 2017.

The Amendment states that a creditor is entitled to be satisfied from its security even when its contingent or future claim (such as bank guarantee) becomes actual after the start of the security provider’s insolvency.

Last December, we updated you that the Supreme Court was considering whether to grant review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our original post is here. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted review of Village at Lakeridge, but only as to one question presented, the most boring one in our view.