When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.

Bankruptcy made clearer: One of the bastions of old-style Scots terminology, guaranteed to perplex Southern audiences, is the law of bankruptcy in Scotland as it applies to individuals and assorted others.

But maybe for no longer. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 has reached the statute book. It’s a consolidating act, encompassing statutes from 1985, 1993, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2014. It introduces a new and fairly modern framework, the aim being to make it less cumbersome and easier to use by those who do not have intimate knowledge of it (most of us!).

The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 (the “Act”) received Royal Assent on 28 April 2016 and is expected to come into force by the end of the year.

The Act is only the second piece of primary consolidation legislation to have passed through the Scottish Parliament and brings together the various laws on personal insolvency into a single piece of legislation.

At the moment, the law is rather unwieldy and difficult to follow in practice.

In a March 8, 2016 ruling from the bench, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a significant decision regarding the ability of a debtor in bankruptcy to reject gas gathering agreements and similar intrastate contracts. Judge Shelley Chapman, overseeing the bankruptcy case of In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., determined that those agreements could be rejected in bankruptcy, notwithstanding contractual provisions that purport to issue conveyances that run with the land.

On September 8, 2015, a federal district court invalidated a portion of the Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute in Strickland v. Alexander, No. 1:12-CV-02735-MHS (N.D. Ga.). Senior Judge Marvin Shoob found that the statute was constitutionally deficient on due process grounds, insofar as it fails to require:

Introduction

For the past several years, low interest rates and higher commodity prices have resulted in generally favorable financial conditions in the energy sector, keeping energy bankruptcy activity to a minimum. With the recent sharp decline of prices in numerous commodities and forecasts of higher interest rates in the near future, there is a likelihood that the financial condition of some companies in the energy and commodities sectors could deteriorate significantly.

A California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) Chief Counsel Ruling concluded that a taxpayer’s sales of assets pursuant to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were not “occasional sales” within the meaning of 18 Cal. Code Regs. § 25137(c)(1)(A)2. Instead, the sales of assets were deemed to be part of the taxpayer’s normal course of business and occurred frequently. As a result, the taxpayer’s gross receipts from the asset sales were includable in its sales factor for apportionment purposes. Under 18 Cal. Code Regs.

On June 12, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Clark v. Ramekerthat an inherited individual retirement account (IRA) does not qualify for the “retirement funds” exemption in the Bankruptcy Code and is not excluded from a bankruptcy estate on that basis.

As noted in a previous Sutherland Legal Alert, the American Bankruptcy Institute has formed a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the Commission). To further its goal of proposing changes to modernize the Bankruptcy Code, the Commission formed a number of advisory committees, including one named the Financial Contracts, Derivatives and Safe Harbors Committee (the Committee).