The amendments to the Insolvency Act 1986 will extend the protection of essential supplies on insolvency to most private utility suppliers. They will also extend protection to I.T. supplies, including data storage and processing and website hosting. Further protection is introduced where contracts are entered into from 1 October 2015, so that insolvency related terms which allow higher supply charges in the event of administration or company voluntary arrangement will be prohibited.
Why is the law changing?
On 26 August 2015, the Board of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (“FSA”) analysed the status of the Romanian insurance undertaking ASTRA SA, considering the report of the special administrator, KPMG Advisory.
According to the FSA, on 30 June 2015, ASTRA SA had: (i) a negative available solvency margin of approximately RON 871 million (approximately EUR 197 million), (ii) a liquidity ratio of 0.03, and (iii) a capital shortage of approximately RON 968 million (approximately EUR 220 million).
Foreclosure defense and bankruptcy often go hand in hand, but sometimes it seems like the left hand doesn’t talk to the right. This has proven especially common with bankruptcy plans that propose to “surrender” real property encumbered by a mortgage. The term “surrender” is not defined in the bankruptcy code. As a result, lenders and borrowers often interpret the term differently. For example, most lenders interpret surrender to mean not defending a foreclosure.
The new Act CV of 2015 on debt settlement procedure for private individuals provides an opportunity for debt settlement both outside and within the scope of a court procedure.
Major parties to the procedure:
In May 2015, the Czech Ministry of Justice submitted a draft amendment to the Insolvency Act to the Government (the “Amendment”).
As we reported in April, the Insolvency Service has issued a call for evidence inviting comments on the issues with, and improvements that could be made to, the collective redundancy consultation requirements for employers facing insolvency. The Government has been seeking views on how well the requirements work both before an insolvency practitioner has been appointed to the failing company and after a formal appointment has been made.
On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, in which all nine Justices joined in an opinion that reversed an Eleventh Circuit ruling that chapter 7 debtors may “strip off” wholly unsecured junior liens. The Caulkett opinion largely relies upon the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992), in which the Court held that a chapter 7 debtor may not “strip down” liens where the value of the property partially secures the underlying claim.
Currently before the Supreme Court is Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C.,2 in which the Court will determine whether bankruptcy judges have discretion to award compensation for the defense of a fee application under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a). The decision in Baker Botts will likely resolve a circuit split and make clear whether a defense of a fee application is necessary to the administration of the case and, therefore, compensable.
Case: The joint administrators of African Minerals Limited (in administration) v Madison Pacific Trust Limited and Shangdong Steel Hong Kong Zengli Limited (HCMP 865 of 2015)
On 26 March 2015, the Deregulation Bill and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill received Royal Assent. These Acts make a number of important changes to the law affecting directors, insolvency law and regulation.
The changes affect (among other things) directors’ liabilities, the powers of administrators and the rights of creditors. While some changes are relevant to all those advising companies and directors, others are of interest principally to insolvency officeholders.