More than a decade after the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, issues pertaining to recognition of a foreign debtor’s bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding under chapter 15 have, in large part, shifted from the purely procedural inquiry (such as the foreign debtor’s center of main interests, or “COMI”) to more substantive challenges regarding the limits, if any, that chapter 15 places on U.S. bankruptcy courts. But as demonstrated by the recent ruling in In re Creative Finance Ltd. (In Liquidation), 2016 BL 8825 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2016), U.S.
From 6 April 2016 an application for an individual resident in England and Wales to go bankrupt will be an online procedure (in Northern Ireland, the changes will apply from November 2016). This change was brought about by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
A debtor will complete an online application to be reviewed by a newly created “Adjudicator”, where previously an application was made in person to the Court. As a result of the changes the court will only be involved in a minority of cases involving an appeal or a post-order application, thus freeing up court time.
Summary
Editor’s Note: Our good London colleague Ed Marlow recently published this as a Bryan Cave client advisory.
The case of K/S Victoria Street v House of Fraser (Stores Management) Ltd in 2011 clarified several important points under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 relating to the release of covenants and the responsibilities of tenant and guarantor on assignment of a lease.
In giving the judgement for K/S Victoria Street Lord Neuberger commented obiter that the anti-avoidance provisions of the 1995 Act may prevent an assignment from a tenant to its guarantor, even if both parties wished it.
Key point
- Purely voluntary redress payments are not caught by a paragraph 99 charge
The facts
The Court of Appeal has reiterated some important rules for funders involved in debt purchase. Banking Litigation specialist Alasdair Urwin looks at the recent case of Bibby Factors Northwest v HDF and MCD [1].
Buyer beware
This case concerned a factoring agreement, pursuant to which a funder (Bibby) purchased unpaid invoices from another company (the Assignor), including debts owing from the defendant companies (the Customers).
It is now clear that leases cannot be assigned to the tenant’s guarantor but serious issues arise out of the recent High Court case of EMI Group Limited v O&H Q1 Limited which specified that any lease assignment by a tenant to its guarantor is void. This means that the assignment is not effective, the lease is still held by the previous tenant and the intended assignee remains the guarantor of that previous tenant (and does not become the new tenant of the lease). In addition, be aware that the court’s decision applies retrospectively.
BLP real estate disputes partner Roger Cohen summarises a recent court decision about whether or not a landlord had accepted a lease surrender by the way it handled “jingle mail”, a letter returning the keys, from the administrators of the insolvent tenant. Jingle mail is a tactic used by administrators. The landlord argued successfully that ,on this occasion, the tactic failed.