In his judgment handed down on 18 October1 Popplewell J took the opportunity to clarify the law
regarding payments by a company to third parties which may or may not have been suspicious and
where the company may or may not have been insolvent at the time. He looked long and hard at the
state of knowledge necessary to ground liability, at defences available to directors and whether the
court could relieve liability for innocent breaches.

A party's right to terminate a contract in the event that the other party becomes insolvent is one of the most commonly seen termination rights in outsourcing and technology agreements. However, the effectiveness of such provisions in the future could change in agreements governing the provision of IT services, as the new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 gives the Government the power to extend the law that currently protects supplies of gas, water, electricity and communication services during an organisation's insolvency to the supply of IT services.

On September 12, 2013, in the American Airlines case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (a) authorizing the debtor to use proceeds of postpetition financing to repay prepetition debt without payment of amake-whole amount, and (b) denying a creditor’s request for relief fromthe automatic stay.  

Background Facts

The UK’s Insolvency Act 1986 sets out in s.123 various tests to determine whether a company should be deemed unable to pay its debts. The relevance of these tests to distressed companies is obvious: deciding as they do when it is appropriate to seek an administration order or present a winding up petition. They also help determine directors’ duties, antecedent transactions and issues such as wrongful and fraudulent trading.

We note with interest the Government's Discussion Paper, 'Transparency & Trust: Enhancing The Transparency of UK Company Ownership And Increasing Trust in UK Business', published yesterday.

In the Paper, the Government proposes to (amongst other things):

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code provides a procedure to obtain recognition in the United States of a "foreign proceeding," which includes a foreign bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, or

A look at the recent restructuring of the Co-operative Bank and EU proposals for mandatory reform

The Co-operative Bank announced in mid-June that it would need to carry out a forced listing of £300m new shares on the London Stock Exchange to fill a capital hole of around £1.5bn. Co-op's difficulties are said to have been triggered by mounting losses at Britannia Building Society - which Co-Op acquired in 2009 - that were highlighted when the bank failed to follow through on its planned acquisition of 632 Lloyds branches in February this year.

On June 26, 2013, US Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, overseeing the chapter 11 case of Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), unsealed a 1,900-page report produced by court-appointed examiner, Arthur J. Gonzalez, and his professionals, Chadbourne & Parke LLP and Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC. The Examiner Report was the culmination of a ten-month investigation that identified amyriad of causes of action, potentially worth billions of dollars, arising fromdozens of transactions involving ResCap's parent, Ally Financial Inc., its subsidiary Ally Bank, and Cerberus.

Over the last several years, the number of Chapter 15 filings has continued to grow. One of the most prominent of these bankruptcy filings is the Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. case. When last we reported on theVitro case, the Texas bankruptcy court administering the Chapter 15 case had denied recognition to the Mexican restructuring plan of Vitro because the plan provided third party releases to non-debtors. See Vitro, S.A.B.: Bankruptcy Court Refuses to Recognize Mexican Concurso That Releases Claims Against Non-Debtors” (November 2012).

Last Fall, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in the Charter Communications bankruptcy case which will create additional significant challenges for those seeking to appeal confirmation of plans of reorganization that have been implemented. See 691 F.3d 476. Upon implementation (or “substantial consummation”) of the plan, the Second Circuit presumes that the appeal of such plan is equitably moot. Appellants bear the burden of overcoming that presumption.