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.

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.

The Government has announced that it will be delaying the proposed changes to Conditional Fee Arrangements ("CFA") and After the Event ("ATE") Insurance, in respect of insolvency proceedings, until 2015.

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.

In its recent decision in Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration)¹  the Supreme Court resolves the uncertainty where a regulated firm does not properly segregate client monies. The decision has a number of practical implications, not only for the administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) but also for the way client monies are held by institutions.  

Background

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.

Many employers dread triggering debts under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 within their defined benefit pension scheme, but in some circumstances it simply cannot be avoided.  Once a section 75 debt has been triggered it is important that the debt is calculated properly.  The Actuary is required to calculate the difference between the value of the scheme's assets and the cost of purchasing annuities to secure all of the liabilities of the scheme.  But what if there is a delay in calculating the debt?  At which date is the Actuary required to ascertain the cost of bu

Introduction

In its recent decision in Re Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander^[1], the Supreme Court clarifies the interrelationship between the rule against double proof and the rule in Cherry v Boultbee. The Court considered in particular whether the rule in Cherry v Boultbee is (1) compatible with the principle against double proof, and (2) limited to seeking an indemnity in respect of sums actually paid.

Background

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