In the recent case Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others the High Court held that the responsibility of identifying and proving title to goods under retention of title clause falls solely on the seller, not the administrators dealing with an insolvency.

Background

Pursuant to the issuing by the Romanian government of Government emergency ordinance no. 91/2013 on the Insolvency Code, Ordinance that has been declared unconstitutional by the Romanian Constitutional Court in October 2013, Romanian Parliament adopted a new Insolvency Law (“New Law”), maintaining some of the valuable provisions of the unconstitutional Ordinance. 

In a decision released on June 25, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that ASARCO LLC could not maintain CERCLA cost recovery actions against the trustees of residuary trusts created by the will of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. ASARCO, as part of its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, paid the US, the State of Washington, and the Port of Everett, Washington $50.2 million to settle pending CERCLA claims at two Superfund sites in Washington State.

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.

A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that certain distressed debt funds were not “financial institutions” under the definition of “Eligible Assignee” in the applicable loan agreement and thus were not entitled to vote on the debtor’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The District Court decision affirmed a bankruptcy court decision enjoining loan assignments to the funds and recently denied the funds’ motion to vacate the decision.”¹

Many will be familiar with the words “further advances” and associate this term with typical boiler plate provisions in finance documents.

In a recent case (In the matter of Black Ant Co Ltd (in administration) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)(15 April 2014) the High Court provided useful commentary on the meaning of “further advances” in the context of the priority of security.

In a novel decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in its ruling In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), that personal injury claims of individuals allegedly harmed by a bankrupt debtor’s products cannot be asserted against a pre-petition purchaser of the debtor’s assets, as they are “generalized claims” which belong to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate rather than to the individuals who suffered the harm.

Background

On 16 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Norm 5 of 2014 of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (the“FSA”) as a supplement to several regulations relating to the calculation of the re/insurer’s solvency margin, the minimum solvency margin and the safety fund (“Norm 5/2014”).

On 14 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Order 562 of 1 April 2014 for the amendment of and supplement to Order 235 of 2001 regarding the insurance of tourists against the insolvability or bankruptcy of travel agencies (“Order 562/2014”).

In the recent case of Davis v. Elliot Mgmt. Corp. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48102 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014), the District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision barring reorganization plans from paying legal fees of individual members of official creditors’ committees absent a showing of substantial contribution to the estate.