Creditors have the right to challenge the remuneration and expenses of appointed administrators through the Court. There is a procedure set out in Rule 2.109(1B) Insolvency Rules including a time limit by which such a challenge should be made. The Court has a discretion to extend the time limit but in what circumstances will the Court exercise its discretion?
A previous post introduced the general concept of ROT provisions as a means to protect suppliers as creditors in the insolvency of their customers. The basic principle of ROT under German law is that the supplier remains the owner of the goods which it has supplied to its customer until the customer has fully paid the purchase price for the goods.
In ordinary civil litigation, appellate review is generally limited to “final judgments,” in order to prevent the wastefulness of appeals on rulings that are not truly dispositive of the case. That notion becomes somewhat more difficult in a bankruptcy, where there are often multiple litigations within the umbrella bankruptcy case. But does that mean that notions of finality should be different in the bankruptcy context? Not so, at least according to the Sixth Circuit.
Most lawyers are generally familiar with the concept of a floating lien under the Uniform Commercial Code. A secured creditor takes a lien in a collateral category that changes from time to time as items are added or subtracted. A common example is a working capital loan, in which financed inventory is produced and sold, then becoming an account, which is collected to provide the funds to produce new inventory. A secured creditor may perfect a lien in the changing mass of inventory and receivables, as each category exists from time to time.
This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments made to other creditors.
Background
The Government has recently published a discussion paper, ‘Transparency & Trust: Enhancing the transparency of UK company ownership and increasing trust in UK business’, inviting feed-back on a number of proposals concerning the transparency of company ownership and control, enforcement of directors’ duties and compensation of creditors. Among other things, the Government proposes to:
To a business litigator, the bankruptcy debtor’s most effective weapon is often the automatic stay, which is commonly used – or abused, depending on the perspective – to, inter alia, stay all pending litigation against the debtor and keep him in sole control of an asset, despite seeming abuses of that control.
In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.
The Sixth Circuit continues to liberally define the "actual knowledge" required to trigger the 3-year ERISA statute of limitations and, in doing so, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants in Brown v Owens Corning Investment Review (Case No. 09-3692).
On 6 April 2010 a second wave of major changes to the UK Insolvency Rules 1986 (the Rules) came into force.