The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

Frequently a debtor’s assets are sold out of bankruptcy “free and clear” of liens and claims under §363(f).  While the Bankruptcy Code imposes limits on this ability to sell assets, it does allow the sale free and clear if “such interest is in bona fide dispute” or if the price is high enough or the holder of the adverse interest “could be compelled ... to accept a money satisfaction of such interest” or if nonbankruptcy law permits such sale free and clear of such interest.

On February 5, 2016 the IRS released Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum Number 201606027 (the IRS Memo) concluding that “bad boy guarantees” may cause nonrecourse financing to become, for tax purposes, the sole recourse debt of the guarantor. This can dramatically affect the tax basis and at-risk investment of the borrowing entity’s partners or members. Non-recourse liability generally increases the tax basis and at-risk investment of all parties but recourse liability increases only that of the guarantor.

Under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is permitted to sell substantially all of its assets outside of a plan of reorganization. Over the past two decades, courts have increasingly liberalized the standards under which 363 sales are approved. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,

On October 16, 2012, the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned decisions of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado that had cast doubt as to whether a lender could enforce a security interest in the proceeds from the sale of a borrower’s FCC broadcast license. The case, Valley Bank and Trust Company v. Spectrum Scan, LLC (In re Tracy Broadcasting Corp.), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (10th Cir. Colo. Oct.

In a decision of considerable importance for bankruptcy debtors and lenders, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling earlier today in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, --- S.Ct. ----, 2012 WL 1912197 (2012). In this highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held that a debtor may not confirm a plan under the “cramdown” provision of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(A) where the plan proposes to sell a secured lender’s collateral without affording the creditor the opportunity to credit-bid for the collateral.

The case of Hull v Campbell serves as a reminder of an outmoded debt recovery procedure that needs to be modernised.

The administrator who is running off the business of English (re)insurer GLOBAL General & Reinsurance Company Ltd filed a petition under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code with the federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan yesterday. The petition asks for the court's assistance with the last of four Schemes of Arrangement for GLOBAL, which was sanctioned by the High Court of Justice for England & Wales on January 28, 2011.

A Maryland bankruptcy court has declared that Side A benefits under a D&O policy are not property of the bankrupt estate, with the result that two former executives who have been accused of making illegal payments and diverting funds from their former employer to start a new venture may be able to recoup certain defense costs. In re: TMST, Inc. f/k/a Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., et al., Docket No. 09-17787 (Bankr.D.Md. Aug. 17, 2010).

A federal judge has ruled that directors and officers of a company in bankruptcy proceedings may continue to access an eroding liability policy to cover their defense costs. The court based its decision on a close examination of the policy language, and alternatively held that the individual directors and officers had shown they were entitled to relief from the automatic stay. In re: Downey Financial Corp., No. 08-bk-13041 (CSS) (Bankr.D.Del. May 7, 2010).