We have a direct statutory conflict:

• one statute requires an ERISA dispute to be resolved in arbitration; but
• a bankruptcy statute requires the same dispute to be resolved in bankruptcy.

Which statute should prevail? The bankruptcy statute, of course.

• That’s the conclusion of In re Yellow Corp.[Fn. 1]

Statutory Conflict

The In re Yellow Corp. case presents a direct conflict between these two federal statutes (emphases added):

Case law relating to the potential recharacterisation of fixed charges tends not to come around too often, but the recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd follows (relatively) hot on the heels of the Avanti Communications case, discussed here.

The case background

No, it isn’t. We now have two cases where the Court has confirmed that insolvency practitioners do not need the consent of paid secured creditors when extending an administration under para. 78 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

The proposed EU Directive on harmonisation of insolvency law seeks to set minimum standards for exercising avoidance actions in insolvency proceedings in order to safeguard the insolvency estate from unlawful asset transfers before the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

In Peru, the insolvency system is administrative rather than judicial. Because the administrative authority has limited powers, preference and avoidance actions must be resolved by the Judiciary. In recent years, the use of these actions has become more frequent.

Scope of avoidance actions

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 has been signed into law. The Act, once commenced, will amend the existing collective redundancy regime in insolvency situations and will deliver on key Programme for Government commitments detailed in the Plan of Action – Collective Redundancies following Insolvency.

Background

In brief

A selection of newly announced legislation and court decisions reinterpreting private law.

Click here to read in Czech.

Hot on the heels of the review of NZS3910, AS 4000-1997, a key Australian standard form construction contract for more than 27 years, is currently being reviewed. This form, or variants of it, is sometimes used in New Zealand and various jurisdictions in the Pacific.

This article was first published by Insol World Magazine in Q1 of 2024.

Insolvency office-holders in the UK and elsewhere frequently rely upon litigation funders to finance their legal proceedings and, accordingly, developments in the funding market are of keen interest to insolvency professionals.

Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies^[1].

When Cash is King but it's running short - what do directors need to know?

The general sentiment for 2024 is that challenges still lie ahead for business owners before things will improve. How will those challenges impact your business?

Directors need to be aware that in times of doubtful solvency the law requires them to at least have regard to the interests of creditors as well as shareholders, and getting it wrong can attract significant personal liability.