On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

The Chancellor announced in his budget that the Crown is to be re-instated as a preferential creditor in insolvency, reversing the changes brought in by The Enterprise Act 2002.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

In the wake of increased competition stemming from the recent liberalisation of the Bulgarian electricity market, more and more electricity players and major electricity traders such as Future Energy and Energy Financing Group are now facing serious financial difficulties.

According to reports, some are now fighting to stay afloat after the initiation of insolvency proceedings. Given this increased market pressure, analysts state it is likely these and other energy traders may declare bankruptcy and face eventual liquidation.

A draft government ordinance amending the Romanian insolvency law was published on September 12. The bill is intended to increase recoverability of state receivables from insolvent companies and to reduce the debtor’s control over the proceedings.

One of the main changes relates to denying the existing right of the insolvent debtor to nominate an insolvency practitioner to be appointed as official receiver. Under the current procedure, it was mandatory for the insolvency court to follow debtor’s proposal, if the creditors did not make a proposal of their own.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.

Background to the case

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

A recent TCC decision highlights the dangers of withholding payment against contractors with a view to pushing them into insolvency. The court allowed the recovery of insolvency professional fees as well as a substantial sum reflecting a reduced settlement reached with a third party on a separate project. The court’s decision has ramifications for any party seeking to withhold large payments under a construction contract against a party who is likely to suffer serious cash-flow pressure as a result.