Just about every year changes are made to the rules that govern how bankruptcy cases are managed — the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The revisions address issues identified by an Advisory Committee made up of federal judges, bankruptcy attorneys, and others.

The In re Tempnology LLC bankruptcy case in New Hampshire has produced yet another important decision involving trademarks and Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code. This time the decision is from the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (“BAP”). Although the BAP’s Section 365(n) discussion is interesting, even more significant is its holding on the impact of rejection of a trademark license.

Before a bankruptcy court may confirm a chapter 11 plan, it must determine if any of the persons voting to accept the plan are “insiders,”i.e., individuals or entities with a close relationship to the debtor. Because the Bankruptcy Code’s drafters believed that insider transactions warrant heightened scrutiny the classification of a creditor as an “insider” can have a profound impact on a debtor’s ability to reorganize.

The UK’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has published a Consultation Paper (CP) “CP32/16 Dealing with a market turning event in the general insurance sector“. The CP attaches a draft Supervisory Statement (SS), which sets out the PRA’s expectations “in relation to significant general insurance loss events which might affect firms’ solvency and future business plans“.

A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in PAH Litigation Trust v. Water Street Healthcare Partners L.P. (In re Physiotherapy Holdings, Inc.), Case No. 13-12965 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. June 20, 2016), may limit the types of transactions that are subject to the “safe harbor” protections of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Summary: On 8 September 2016 Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in Glenn Maud v Aabar Block Sarl & others [2016] EWHC 2175 (Ch) in which he considered how the court should deal with a bankruptcy petition where the petitioning creditor may have an ulterior purpose for seeking a bankruptcy order.

A client who is building a large mixed use development called me yesterday with a dilemma. He had received a letter from a local equipment supplier, who was on the verge of bankruptcy because the sub-contractor who had engaged him had gone into administration after the hire period had come to an end. He was pleading with my client to help him recover some £20,000 of hire fees still owed to him.

Summary: Customers of a company in administration were entitled, as against a factor, to exercise equitable set-off in respect of entitlements to rebates that had arisen between the customers and the company notwithstanding the assignment of the customer’s debts to the factor.

Bibby Factors Northwest Ltd v HFD Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1908 (17 December 2015)

Background

A statutory instrument has recently been passed providing that the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 will, finally, come into force on 1 August 2016, some six years after it was first passed.

The act will replace and, in general, streamline the procedures put in place by the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. Perhaps the two most significant changes brought about by the 2010 Act are:

Summary: The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee's findings in relation to Kids Company serve as a reminder of the risks of insolvency to large charities. The inherent weaknesses in the demand-led 'self-referral' operating model resulted in little to no reserves, and ultimately led to the trustees being required to file a petition to wind up the charity. Trustees of large charities must always be mindful of reserve levels.