The new Insolvency Practice Direction 2016 has finally been given approval by the Lord Chancellor and came into force yesterday (25 April) bringing with it changes to reflect the new Insolvency Rules 2016 and recent changes to the CPR. The new practice direction replaces that of 2014 with immediate effect. Key changes include:

Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.

Each year, millions of parents across America write checks to institutions of higher learning, in payment of tuition and charges for their children to pursue a college degree. Inevitably, some of those parents end up in the bankruptcy courts. In recent years, trustees have found an attractive potential source of estate recovery: pursuing the colleges and universities to recover tuition and related payments as constructive fraudulent transfers.

A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.

There are various ways misconduct can be reported in respect of companies and individuals. Establishing which authority has the power to conduct investigations of wrongdoing depends to a certain extent on the status of the companies and individuals.

The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.

Last Friday, October 13, Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the presumption against extraterritoriality of US law as well as the limits of the doctrine of international comity.

The English Court has recently considered who can be recognised as “foreign representatives” under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) in the case of Re 19 Entertainment Limited, about a US company in Chapter 11. The Re 19 Entertainment judgment appears to be the first English case where directors of a company in Chapter 11 proceedings were recognised as “foreign representatives.”

On September 27, 2017, the Senate passed the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017. The Senate’s bill is intended to ease the burden on certain overworked bankruptcy courts and also increase bankruptcy fees in larger cases. The House of Representatives passed a different version of the bill earlier in the year.

Last week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a bankruptcy court order barring tort claims for product defects against the purchaser of General Motors’ (“Old GM”) assets.  The purchaser (“New GM”) had purchased Old GM’s assets “free and clear” in Old GM’s 2009 bankruptcy case under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Second Circuit’s ruling is certainly a victory for the plaintiffs who are seeking damages for personal injuries arising o