Following the Enterprise Act 2002, the preferential status which HMRC had enjoyed in an insolvency was abolished, rendering HMRC the same as any other unsecured creditor. The effect of this was to swell the pot of assets available to be applied to all unsecured creditor claims.

Philip Hammond announced in Monday’s budget that HMRC’s preferential status is to be restored. What does this mean for HMRC and unsecured creditors?

The Budget provided that:

The Bankruptcy Code gives special protections to licensees of intellectual property when a debtor, as licensor, seeks to reject the license. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not include trademarks in its definition of “intellectual property.” So, are licensees of trademarks given any protection when debtors reject trademark licenses? If the Supreme Court grants a recent petition for writ of certiorari, we may get an answer.

How real is the threat to the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York as the prime venue choices for corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases? It appears that both are safe, at least for now.

Certain licensees of intellectual property are expressly given expanded rights when their licensors file bankruptcy. But what about trademark licensees? Trademarks are not among the defined categories of “intellectual property” for bankruptcy purposes. Nonetheless, are trademark licensees otherwise protected in a licensor bankruptcy? Unfortunately for these licensees, a recent circuit court decision put the brakes on attempts to expand protection to licensees of trademarks.

The English High Court has sanctioned a scheme of arrangement for Algeco Scotsman PIK SA, a Luxembourg-incorporated company, after the creditors consented to the New York governing law and jurisdiction clause being altered in favour of the jurisdiction of the English courts. The issues discussed were:

1. the fair representation of a class of creditors;
2. cross-jurisdictional schemes; and
3. early tender fees offered to creditors.

Background

Remuneration schemes involving Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) have become more prevalent over the last 20 years, often as a way of seeking to remunerate key employees without making pay as you earn or national insurance contributions. Given the developments highlighted below, insolvency practitioners are advised to investigate such schemes in matters coming across their desks to see whether funds can be clawed back for the benefit of creditors.

HM Revenue and Customs’ opinion on EBT schemes

Are you already a board member or executive of a Slovak company or about to become one? If so, you should know about the proposed amendment to the Slovak Commercial Code. The amendment aims to address the so-called “white horses” and “tunneling (asset stripping)” of the companies.

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review a Seventh Circuit decision regarding the scope of the so-called “safe harbor” from avoidable transfers provided in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Many in the U.S. bankruptcy industry expect that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., Case No. 16-784, in order to resolve a long-running split among the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 10th Circuits, on the one hand, and the 7th and 11th Circuits on the other.

The Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (CAP 32) (the “Amendment Ordinance”) came into force on 13 February 2017. One of the key objectives of the Amendment Ordinance is to increase protection of creditors. Under the Amendment Ordinance, liquidators are given the avoidance power to set aside transactions at an undervalue and unfair preferences. 

In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit examined whether circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear direct appeals of unauthorized bankruptcy court orders that have not been reviewed by a district court. This was an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit. The appellate court held that a bankruptcy court’s ruling in a non-core proceeding that has not been reviewed by the district court carries no adjudicative authority and is therefore not directly appealable to the circuit court.