Amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 3002
Certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) will become effective in all cases commencing after December 1, 2017.1
The amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 3002 is significant. As explained in detail below, the amendment does the following:
When creditors are demanding payment and money is tight the easiest thing to do is pay those who are shouting the loudest. Often HMRC debts, including Winding Up Petitions, are ignored in favour of paying suppliers so that a business can keep going. However, ignoring HMRC can lead to unavoidable failure of a company.
The Bankruptcy Code gives secured creditors certain rights and protections. For secured creditors whose collateral is worth more than the creditor’s claim, these rights may include payment of attorney’s fees and post-petition interest at a rate agreed to in the debtor’s and creditor’s prepetition agreement. A chapter 11 bankruptcy plan, however, may have provisions in it that expressly takes away a secured creditor’s right to post-petition interest.
A recent case shows how a company’s Articles of Association, a document which defines the duties and responsibilities of members, must be adhered to when directors are exercising their powers.
The court had to consider whether a sole director of a company, whose articles required two directors for its board meeting to be quorate, could validly pass a resolution to appoint administrators under the Insolvency Act 1986 and, if not, whether the Duomatic principle could validate the appointment.
Creditors lacking liens to secure their claim can fare poorly in a bankruptcy case. The “absolute priority rule” is a bedrock principle of bankruptcy law and provides that a creditor at a particular rung of the claim priority hierarchy must be paid in full before any money flows down to junior creditors. Secured creditors reside near the top of the hierarchy, followed by administrative expense claimants, priority claimants and general unsecured creditors.
A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has fanned the smoldering dispute among courts regarding the scope of asset sales in bankruptcy. In the In re Spanish Peaks Holdings II, LLC decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s holding that sale of commercial real estate can, in certain circumstances, be free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances, and interests, including a leasehold interest. In other words, a tenant of a bankrupt landlord could find itself with no interest in the property following the sale.
In the case of Newwatch Ltd v Bennett, the court ruled that After The Event insurance (ATE) policies could not be used as adequate security for costs by the claimant companies who were based in Denmark and Jersey.
On June 25, 2017, Takata’s US arm, TK Holdings Inc.
Predictions that retailers would increasingly find themselves filing bankruptcy, whether for the first or second time, are proving true mid-year. See January 2017 Alix Partners Survey at p. 2.
A recent decision in the High Court has seen an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy dismissed because the defendant was not insolvent.
Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company owned a warehouse that was damaged by a fire caused by Dornoch. They argued that their claim was highly likely to win but that, if it did, it would cause Dornoch to become insolvent.
Peel Port therefore sought ‘pre-action disclosure’, meaning Dornoch would have to disclose applicable insurance cover information to Peel Port before they decided whether to proceed.