Following Parliamentary approval in March 2015, this Implementation Timetable sets out the key dates and changes which have been published to date on the insolvency provisions of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act. This timetable was updated in October 2015.
We will, of course, provide confirmation and updates as and when further guidance is published.
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act
When will the insolvency-related provisions come into force?
Legal changes affecting construction businesses from 1 October 2015
1 October 2015 ushers in a number of legal changes which affect construction businesses operating in the UK. We have provided brief highlights of some of the changes below. If you need further information, please contact us using the details on the right.
More important changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA86) and other insolvency- related legislation come into force this week (1 October 2015) as a result of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (SBEEA 2015).
We have updated our Implementation Timetable to reflect the changes.
Ruling description
In the judgment of August 18, 2015 (case no. II FSK 2510/13) the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that a registered partnership is excluded from the scope of application of the Capital Duties Directive (69/335/ EEC). Therefore, Restructuring activities in such a company are subject to civil law transactions tax (PCC).
The Czech Supreme Court recently issued two decisions having significant impact on the position of secured creditors (i.e. generally financial institutions) within insolvency proceedings. Both decisions stem from one of the first major insolvencies conducted under the (then new) Czech Insolvency Act effective from 2008 in respect of the group of companies in a glass-making business. This article briefly reviews those decisions and points out their practical effects on the rights of secured creditors.
Security interest in rental income
The Bankruptcy Code is federal law. It affords debtors protections - including the automatic stay and debt discharge injunction - that hold creditors at bay.
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is also federal law. It contains limitations on what a debt collector can do when attempting to collect a debt.
Because debts - and more particularly attempts to collect those debts - drive people into bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are sometimes forced to grapple with questions of how the Bankruptcy Code and FDCPA interact and impact each other.
In an interesting decision with important implications for both Chapter 15 practice and financial institutions’ global credit risk analyses, a US Chapter 15 court (the “Court”) granted recognition of a number of Brazilian proceedings involving entities within the OAS Group. See In re OAS S.A. et al., Case No. 15-10937 (SMB) (Bankr.
Sixth Circuit Affirms Bankruptcy Court Order Allowing Amended Exemptions Following Re-Opening of Case
In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a debtor is required to file a schedule listing all of the debtor’s property. This includes cash, hard assets such as furniture and cars, as well as intangibles such as causes of action or potential causes of action. The Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to “exempt” certain types of property from the estate, enabling them to retain exempted assets post-bankruptcy.
On 20 May 2015 the recast EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (2015/848) (Recast Regulation) was adopted and will apply to insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017 in Member States (other than Denmark). Broader in scope than the original Regulation (1346/2000) (Regulation) it replaces, the Recast Regulation introduces new rules on centre of main interests (COMI) and secondary proceedings as well as a framework for coordinating group insolvency proceedings and better communication. Helen Anderson considers the changes of most interest to banks and other lenders.
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Bank of America v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, together with Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163, holding unanimously that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor cannot “strip off” a junior lien.