The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code exempts payments for electricity provided under a requirements contract from avoidance as preferences. At least where the facts match those of the subject case, MBS Mgmt. Serv., Inc. v. MXEnergy Elect., Inc., No. 11-30553, 2012 WL 3125167 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2012), such payments are exempt.

In light of the modern trend towards “pre-pack” arrangements as a legitimate restructuring solution, a recent judgment handed down in the Federal Court provides a timely reminder for insolvency practitioners that independence is paramount and liquidators can be removed upon the application of a creditor in circumstances where there is a perception of conflict.

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.

A Ministry of Justice Report released in March 2012 has confirmed that the implementation of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (the "Act") is to be delayed until 2013.

Introduction

A recent Court of Appeal case confirms that the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 does apply to judgments in insolvency matters and that the Insolvency Act 1986 can be used to enforce a foreign judgment.

In New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anr v AE Grant & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 971, the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision of the Companies Court that a judgment obtained in Australia could be enforced in England under section 426 of the Insolvency Act (the IA) and at common law.

NEW CAP RE: THE FACTS

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.

As we previously report here, Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“AFG”), the holding company for the bond insurer, Ambac Assurance Corp. (“AAC”), filed for bankruptcy in November 2010 after it was unable to raise additional capital or come to terms with its debt holders.