It is very much the nature of the job that appointed Office Holders are required to make difficult and challenging decisions on each and every case they take. On some occasions those decisions are well received – on others, not so well. Creditors affected by those decisions can take comfort that the Office Holder is experienced in making those difficult decisions, is an Officer of the Court, has their own licence to protect and, fundamentally, has a duty to treat all creditors fairly.
Unless you have been living in a cave, you will have heard the very disappointing news that the current exemption to the Jackson reforms for insolvency claims under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (“LASPO”) will cease as of 1 April 2016.
If you are to avail yourself of the benefits of the Jackson exemption, which was one of the few pieces of legislation that levelled out the playing field between Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) and rogue directors – then read on.
At the end of April 2015 the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopted Act No. 87/2015 Coll., which amends and supplements Act No. 513/1991 Coll. Commercial Code, as amended, and also amends and supplements certain acts (the Amendment). The Amendment will significantly affect the content of the corporate law in Slovakia.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) appears to be finally in the process of issuing a long-awaited new federal insolvency law. Described by some as a game-changer, the government announced in July that its Cabinet has approved a draft of the new law replacing the old (and largely unused) insolvency regime. The highly anticipated law is now pending the approval and ratification of the Federal National Council and Supreme Council before it receives final approval by Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the UAE President.
On August 4, 2015, the Second Circuit weighed in for the first time on the circumstances in which the confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan could strip a secured creditor of its lien. In City of Concord, N.H. v.
Over the last seven months there has been a spate of cases dealing with the relationship between arbitration law and insolvency law.
Winding-up petitions and arbitration clauses
How far do the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions extend in the commercial mortgage-backed securitization (CMBS) market? Do these safe harbor provisions protect financial institutions that act merely as conduits for CMBS payments? These questions were addressed recently by the Northern District of Illinois District Court, and the court’s decision provides ammunition for CMBS investors in clawback claims brought by a bankruptcy trustee.
In the mid-1990’s I represented several trade creditors in a contentious Chapter 11 bankruptcy called Pro-Snax. At the creditors’ request, the bankruptcy court directed the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee one month into the case. Nonetheless the dispossessed debtor pursued a Chapter 11 liquidation plan. The creditors, which held a clear “blocking position” in terms of class voting, opposed the plan. The plan was denied confirmation six months into the case.
The UK Government announced plans in parliament on 3 March 2015 requiring insolvency practitioners to provide an upfront estimate of their fees for creditor approval, where they are charging on a time-cost basis. The new rules are expected to be in force from October 2015 for English and Welsh regimes (although they will not apply to members’ voluntary liquidations).
In a sternly-worded, sixty-page opinion last week, the Sixth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed a bankruptcy court’s $200,000 sanctions order against an attorney that arose from a plethora of litigation over an ultimately disallowed claim in what became a complicated bankruptcy.