Many schemes will see a sharp increase in their levy next year  as a result of the PPF’s new and more discriminative insolvency  scoring system.

To give you an idea, the PPF expects:

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

Introduction

The Chancellor’s 2014 Budget speech revealed significant  changes to the way in which pension scheme members will be  able to access their savings. This move falls as just one of a raft  of changes to workplace pensions which Steve Webb MP has  described as a “pensions revolution”.

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

This update focusses on the recent Supreme Court decision in Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) concerning the application of the “contributory rule” in administration and the admissibility and set-off of contingent claims in administration

Lehmans and the contributory rule

Preamble

Most if not all of our readers will be aware of a recent spate of decisions in which the English courts have been prepared to sanction schemes of arrangements (SofAs) for foreign entities having a “sufficient connection” with England and Wales. The latest decisions in Re Magyar Telecom B.V. (03/12/2013) show just how flexible the English courts can be in finding such a connection.

The background

This update focusses upon two recent High Court decisions dealing with (respectively) the ability of the court to retrospectively extend court-appointed receiverships, and the issue of whether COMI had shifted to England for a German national seeking bankruptcy here.

Extension of court-appointed receiverships

The case of Bank of Ireland v (1) Edeneast (2) Cosgrove and (3) Maguire (17/09/2013) concerned an application by the bank to retrospectively continue and extend the appointment of a courtappointed receiver.

This update focusses on a range of issues affecting IPs from the past two months, covering the consultation on fees announced in February, the HMRC announced changes to the VAT deregistration regime, when accountants may be required to produce documents under Sections 235 and 256 of the Insolvency Act, and a recent Court of Appeal decision on when a company may be considered to be insolvent for the purpose of Section 238 actions

Consultation on the regulation of Insolvency Practitioners and IPs’ fees

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.

Senior Counsel Greg Laughlin discusses the legislative steps being taken to prevent future large-scale government bailouts of distressed financial institutions. From implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act to the introduction of the PATH Act in the U.S. House of Representatives, efforts are underway to end bailouts by placing greater emphasis on private capital solutions that diminish the need for taxpayer dollars.

Click here to view the video.