At the start of 2017, UK businesses had reported a 33% risk of insolvency, compared to the end of 2017 which saw that figure increase to nearly 40%.

These figures were calculated by drawing together key performance indicators including balance sheets and records of the directors’ successful (or unsuccessful) directorship history.

Last week, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.1 the Supreme Court settled a split in the circuit courts, unanimously holding that the safe harbor provision created by 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), 11 U.S.C.

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court, in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, ruled that the “securities safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, does not shield transferees from liability simply because a particular transaction was routed through a financial intermediary—so-called “conduit transactions.”

What happens if a debtor is made bankrupt after a creditor has issued debt recovery proceedings?

A bankruptcy debt is any debt that the bankrupt owed to the relevant creditor at the date of the bankruptcy order, or a debt which arises under an obligation incurred by the debtor before the bankruptcy order, but one which falls due after the date of the bankruptcy order (known as contingent debts).

The Insolvency Service has just released its personal insolvency statistics for 2017 revealing an upturn in overall personal insolvencies (just under 10% more than in 2016) and an increase of around 1/5th (19.8% on 2016) of people entering into Individual Insolvency Arrangements (IVAs). More people entered into IVAs last year than in 2008 (when many consider the credit crunch took its grip).

In light of the business news over the last year, including the most current news of Carillion, it is important to know how business failure impacts on employment rights.

Despite the Treasury’s comparison of independent forecasts for the UK economy showing an overall upturn for January 2018, there appears to be a nasty outbreak of bad weather looming. Close on the heels of the reported financial woes of Toys R Us and House of Fraser comes the news of the fashion retailer New Look and now, massively, Carillion.

The recent decision in Leeds v Lemos may create significant problems for Trustees in Bankruptcy as they attempt to fulfil their duty of realising a Bankrupt’s estate for the benefit of his creditors.

The case centred on the wish of the Trustee in Bankruptcy to rely on documents that the Bankrupt (and some third parties) claimed were privileged. The Trustee in Bankruptcy therefore asked the Court to compel the Bankrupt to waive privilege, so that the documents could be referred to in legal proceedings..

Business Finance and Restructuring What will 2018 hold? Horizon scanning for 2018 Legal Outlook Legislative changes Reform of English corporate insolvency framework The Insolvency Service has yet to react to responses to its consultation in mid-2016 on significant reforms designed to improve the restructuring tools available to companies.1 We had expected the government to push this forward in 2017, but the reforms appear to have stalled and the issue was sadly missing from the Queen’s Speech.