Last week, in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (May 26, 2015), the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court can enter final judgment on “non-core” claims under 28 U.S.C. § 157 if the parties consent to that court’s jurisdiction.  It overturned a decision by the Seventh Circuit that relied heavily on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Waldman v.

Overview

This article considers the state of the care homes industry, certain issues that arise when dealing with the imminent insolvency of care homes and initial considerations about what to take into account when determining sales strategy.

General concerns

The Supreme Court rules in a recent decision over different bankruptcy incidents. The first relates to a work contract to supply materials in which a penalty clause for late work is established, and the ability to execute the works under the guarantee provided in the contract if the contractor may not execute them. Having a delay in delivery of the work and having entrusted to another company the repair works, the owner claimed the payment of the amounts and compensation with the guarantee held.

What began as a garden variety bankruptcy claims objection has ended with a sharply-worded, sixty-page opinion, in which the Sixth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ( “BAP”) affirmed a bankruptcy court’s $200,000 sanctions order entered against the creditor’s attorney.

Pre-packs are a valuable business rescue tool but have often been criticised by creditors because they enable an administrator to conclude a sale without involving them. The term ‘pre-packaged sale’ refers to an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of the company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an administrator and the administrator effects the sale immediately on, or shortly after, appointment.

The recent case of Husky Group Ltd  (“Husky”) underlines the importance of following your lawyer’s advice and not pursuing the defense of the indefensible.

As we expected might happen in light of the Court’s previous order, the parties in the Detroit bankruptcy appeal agreed to postpone oral argument.  In a letter to the parties, however, Judge Gibbons wrote that the appeals should be resolved before near the beginning of the hearing on the confirmation

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”.

Introduction

In the aftermath of the 2009 bankruptcies of Chrysler LLC (“Old Chrysler”) and General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), Congress enacted Section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, Pub. L. No.