The Key Provisions

After much delay, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the “Act”) will come into force on 1 August 2016. The essential purpose of the act is to aid claimants in procuring recoveries from the insurers of insolvent defendants.The Key Provisions

This will be of particular use to businesses that frequently find themselves in litigation with financially weak defendants. However, insolvency practitioners should also take note of the Act as it places new obligations on them.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) will finally come into force from 1 August 2016.

The Act improves the rights of claimants who have a claim against an insolvent company or individual to directly claim against the insolvent party’s insurer.

In particular, the 2010 Act brings about the following important changes:

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.

Although the EU Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law have been with us for some time, decisions involving the court’s recognition of foreign proceedings continue to evolve and will – of necessity – turn on the specific facts of every case. We investigate two recent decisions which came up with very different results.

The background – Re OGX Petroloeo E Gas S.A. [2016] EWHC 25

The past few months have seen some interesting developments in legislative and regulatory requirements in the restructuring and insolvency world. We explore a number of them in this article.

SBEEA – reports on director conduct from 6 April

The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Commencement No 4), Transitional and Savings Provisions Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/321) were made on 9 March 2016.

A long-honored concept in real property, that of “covenants running with the land,” is finding its way into the bankruptcy courts. If a covenant (a promise) runs with the land then it burdens or benefits particular real property and will be binding on the successor owner; if that covenant does not run with the land then it is personal and binds those who promised but does not impose itself on a successor owner.

We are often asked what to do if you have an operating agreement and your operator or one of the other working interest owners files for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to assume or reject the JOA (it is usually an executory contract).

The received wisdom is that if, as a debtor, you are considering equitable set-off arguments, you are clutching at straws. A recent case shows a rare example of when such rights can successfully be used however. This article explores the issues further.

The background

Company dissolution and restoration, and its effects upon property of the company, is a difficult area to grapple with. Two recent decisions dealt with similar issues but with completely different outcomes. We analyse the decisions and which one should be viewed as correct.

The background