On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split under the Bankruptcy Code and determined that where funds passed through financial institutions acting as payment conduits, where the ultimate transfer sought to be avoided was not the type of transaction protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), shielding transfers through financial institutions from avoidance actions by bankruptcy trustees, was inapplicable.

Despite a modest uptick in recent years, it is still a relatively rare occasion for the Supreme Court of the United States to tackle issues involving bankruptcy. This term, however, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two bankruptcy appeals that could have important consequences for the financial community. In FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, the Court will define the parameters of the safe harbor of Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), which excludes certain financial transactions from the debtor’s avoidance powers. In PEM Entities LLC v.

In related Nortel and Lehman Brothers cases, the UK Supreme Court ruled in July that Financial Support Directions ("FSDs") and Contribution Notices ("CNs") under the Pensions Act 2004 rank as provable debts if issued against insolvent targets.

Overturning the decisions of Mr Justice Briggs and the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has ruled that such FSD or CN liabilities are not administration or liquidation expenses. It has also confirmed that they do not rank behind other provable debts (the option which had become known as the 'black hole').

The Czech Supreme Court recently issued two decisions having significant impact on the position of secured creditors (i.e. generally financial institutions) within insolvency proceedings. Both decisions stem from one of the first major insolvencies conducted under the (then new) Czech Insolvency Act effective from 2008 in respect of the group of companies in a glass-making business. This article briefly reviews those decisions and points out their practical effects on the rights of secured creditors.

Security interest in rental income

Background

The United Kingdom Supreme Court recently decided the appeal in the important case In the Matter of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE) (In Administration) and In the matter of the Insolvency Act 1986 [2012] UK (the Case).

In summary, the Case is about which claims can be treated as claims for client money. This turns on interpreting the rules of the UK’s Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS) in chapter 7 of CASS. These FSA rules stem from the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID).

The Supreme Court recently considered the scope of the anti-deprivation principle, in Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited (respondent) v. BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (appellant) [2011] UKSC 38 (Belmont). Understanding the scope of this principle is important for anyone entering a contract where the parties’ rights and obligations change if one of them enters an insolvency procedure. Robert Spedding explains how the courts applied the principle in Belmont and makes some practical suggestions for avoiding problems.

In Warren v. Warren the British Columbia Supreme Court recently appointed an equitable receiver over the assets of a judgment to debtor, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff did not have any security.

On May 16, 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Florida Department of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. and ruled that debtors who sell property during the course of a Chapter 11 case prior to the confirmation of a plan cannot use Section 1146(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to exempt those sales from applicable state transfer and stamp taxes.

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649 (2017)

The US Supreme Court has unanimously held that a debtor cannot void a wholly underwater second mortgage in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The decision comes in the consolidated cases of Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, No. 13-1421, and Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona, No. 14-163.