On May 10, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, entered an Order of Liquidation as to Health Republic Insurance of New York (HRINY) based upon a petition filed by the Acting Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, Maria Vullo.  The Order was entered upon the filing of an 

Today we’ll begin with a two-part question: When do you suppose you could (i) hold a debtor’s property hostage without running afoul of the automatic stay and (ii) also collect on an administrative expense for postpetition rent for leased space used to store such property?

If you don’t already know the answers to the above questions, perhaps an overview of a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey will provide some insight.

The High Court has recently demonstrated its right to exercise discretion as to whether an administration order should be made in relation to a company. In Rowntree Ventures v Oak Property Partners Limited, even though the companies were unable to pay their debts and where the statutory purpose of administration was likely to be achieved, the Court exercised its commercial judgment in determining that it was premature to make an administration order.

Background

The Supreme Court has held that a principal was entitled to recover payments collected by its agent on its behalf following the agent's insolvency: Bailey and another (Respondents) v Angove's PTY Limited (Appellant) [2016] UKSC 47.

In a recent case, BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others, the High Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which the directors of a company are required to consider the interests of creditors and the extent to which the payment of a dividend by a company can be susceptible to challenge under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

Focus on the AB InBev and SABMiller merger

In the recent case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA & others [2016] EWHC 1686, the High Court has held for the first time that a dividend can be challenged as a transaction entered into at an undervalue within the meaning of section 423(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

The Facts

The facts of the case are long and complex but for present purposes the pertinent facts are as follows.

Arjo Wiggins Appleton Limited (now Windward Prospects Limited) (“AWA”) was a wholly owned subsidiary of Sequana SA (“SSA”).

EMI Group Ltd -v- O&H Q1 Ltd [2016 EWHC 529 (Ch)is the latest case in the saga following the 2011 decision in K/S Victoria St. v House of Fraser, relating to lease assignments and guarantors of “new tenancies” (generally meaning leases entered in to on or after 1 January 1996).

Validation orders under s127 Insolvency Act 1986 will only be made:

• in special circumstances

• where a particular transaction is one that is in the interests of the creditors as a whole; and

• the circumstances warrant the overriding of the pari passu principle

The Facts

Section 342A and the further associated provisions within the Insolvency Act 1986 (“the Act”) provide a Trustee in Bankruptcy with the power to apply to seek to recover pension contributions made whether by the bankrupt himself on his own behalf or by another on his behalf.

Before the Court can grant relief it has to be sure that the rights under the pension scheme are the fruits of the complained of contributions and further that the contributions have unfairly prejudiced the individual’s creditors (Section 342A (2)(a) and(b).