This case considered whether Bulmers Transport Limited (“Bulmers”) was under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner” pursuant to Regulation 8(7) Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”).

Comment

The case provides some helpful clarity on the inter-relationship of Regulation 8(7) TUPE and s388 Insolvency Act 1986, when determining whether a company is under the “supervision of an insolvency practitioner”.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued its decision on a question of first impression before the court: whether section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code applies to administrative claims arising under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. See, generally, ASM Capital, L.P. v. Ames Dept. Stores, Inc. (In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc.), 582 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 2009).

Comment

On December 1, 2009, numerous changes to the time periods applicable in bankruptcy cases took effect. These changes, which will impact creditors and debtors alike, are relatively straightforward but must be carefully reviewed and thoroughly understood. Time plays a critical role in the administration of bankruptcy cases, affecting the degree of notice a party is required to give before certain actions can be taken or approved by the bankruptcy court as well as deadlines for filing various documents, asserting various rights and satisfying certain statutory obligations.

An administrators’ appointment automatically ends after one year, unless steps are taken to extend it. The Enterprise Act introduced a new streamlined process for moving quickly and easily from administration to creditors’ voluntary liquidation, just by filing a notice at Companies House under para 83(3) Sch B1 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986. Problems have arisen where that notice has been filed very late in the day and not received before the administrators’ term of office automatically ends.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, global credit markets were virtually frozen, leading many distressed businesses and their constituents to take measures to avoid bankruptcy filings at almost all costs. Without access to debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, bankruptcy most often results in liquidation – and with lenders reluctant to provide new money, even in exchange for superpriority and/or priming liens, total collapse became an increasingly common result.

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

On May 31, 2009, approximately 30 days after Chrysler Group LLC and affiliated debtors filed for bankruptcy relief, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York authorized the sale of substantially all of Chrysler’s assets to “New Chrysler” – an entity formed by Chrysler and Fiat Automobiles SpA and initially majority-owned by Chrysler’s Voluntary Employees’ Beneficiary Association (VEBA) – free and clear of liens, claims and encumbrances under section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Fiat Transaction).

Background

On 13 December 2008 the official Spanish government gazette, “Boletín Oficial del Estado” published the Spanish “Real Decreto- Ley 10/2008” of 12 December, which sets out financial measures intended to improve the liquidity of small and medium sized enterprises, and other complementary economic measures.