The power of a bankruptcy court to authorize the sale of assets “free-and-clear” of liens and any other interests is a powerful tool that is used to realize value from distressed businesses. Indeed, purchasers will occasionally insist that sellers file a chapter 11 case in order to “cleanse the assets” by conducting their sale under Bankruptcy Code § 363(b). But how far does this power reach? Can bankruptcy be used to protect the purchaser from potential successor liability claims?
What can happen to you if your pre-payment is lost is demonstrated by the recent administration of budget tour operator Lowcostholidays. The company’s administration left customers already abroad at risk of being asked by hotel owners to settle their bills before leaving and meant that other customers lost deposits paid for holidays which will now, sadly, not take place.
Prior to 1930 if an insured person/company (insured) incurred a liability to a third party (TP) but then became bankrupt/passed into liquidation any monies paid out under the insurance policy was paid to the Trustee/Liquidator for the benefit of ALL creditors.
The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (1930 Act) transferred the insured’s rights against the insurer under certain circumstances to the TP who could pursue the insurer against the policy proceeds once the insured’s liability was established. So the policy proceeds may benefit the TP and not all creditors.
New York bankruptcy judge dismisses claims to recover approximately $1 billion that had been distributed to noteholders following commencement of the Lehman Brothers chapter 11 proceedings in September 2008.
England has been the jurisdiction of choice for European restructurings. While other jurisdictions have sought to revamp their insolvency law in recent years in an effort to chip away at the English dominance in the restructuring arena, the lure of the tried and tested English legislation and judiciary means that the English system has remained dominant. In the wake of Brexit, will England lose its place as jurisdiction of choice?
In a decision of 9 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") has ruled that the determination of the close-out amount in a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions (Rahmenvertrag für Finanztermingeschäfte or DRV) is not legally effective in the event of insolvency to the extent that it deviates from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code.
Following on from our recent blog post on Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch), in which Mr Justice Snowdon discussed the issues around wrongful trading under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the quantum of liability that may be placed on directors who continue to trade when they knew, or ought to have known, that the company was insolvent, the Financial Reporting Council (“FRC”) has issued new guidance on the going concern basis of accounting and reporting on solvency and liquidity risks.
Welcome to the third article in this amazing series which looks at what you can do to try to extract money from a stubborn business debtor.
It is now clear that leases cannot be assigned to the tenant’s guarantor but serious issues arise out of the recent High Court case of EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited which specified that any lease assignment by a tenant to its guarantor is void. This means that the assignment is not effective, the lease is still held by the previous tenant and the intended assignee remains the guarantor of that previous tenant (and does not become the new tenant of the lease). In addition, be aware that the court’s decision applies retrospectively.