Following our 2016 article, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court that dividends are liable to challenge as transactions defrauding creditors under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “IA”).

A precedential decision issued on November 28, 2018 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit highlights the limits of bankruptcy judges’ authority to transfer non-core proceedings to other courts. The Third Circuit’s opinion in In re IMMC Corp. f/k/a Immunicon Corp., et al., Case No. 18-1177, also emphasizes the importance of choosing the right forum for filing post-confirmation litigation.

The Ministry of Justice is seeking feedback from key stakeholders on the impact of Part 2 of the LAPSO reforms, which abolished the recoverability of success fees under CFAs and after the event insurance premiums.

Until April 2015 insolvency claims were exempt, enabling insolvency practitioners to pursue claims and if successful recover any success fee and more importantly after the event insurance premiums. There was concern at the time, that by abolishing the ability to recover the premium that insolvency claims would be stifled.

The Court of Appeal recently heard an appeal from the Central London County Court, in which a judgment debtor(“L”) appealed a decision than an application to pay a judgment debt by instalments had been refused – DianaLoson v Brett Stack, Newlyn Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 803.

Background

There are many issues that can hinder the collection of book debts and insolvency (of either the creditor or the debtor) is usually the catalyst for most them. Following an insolvency, those attempting to collect book debts are often faced with a number of reasons as to why a debtor can’t or won’t pay, including the set-off / contra arrangements, product warranty concerns, defective or non-delivery of goods or services and last, but not least, retention of title (“RoT”) clauses.

One of the fundamental elements of the American bankruptcy system is the automatic stay under section 362 of the bankruptcy code. The stay protects the debtor and its assets from creditor activity, in order to facilitate equitable treatment of creditors in the collective bankruptcy process. The remedies provided for violations of the stay allow the estate to enforce the protections provided by section 362.

German insolvency laws are very strict. The management of an insolvent company is under strict obligations to file for insolvency, and failure to comply with such obligation may result in civil and criminal liability. Other stakeholders, like financing banks or suppliers, who are dealing with a distressed company, require documentation that their contract partner can be restructured, in order to avoid potential liability and claw back risk in case of a future insolvency.

Do a lessee’s possessory interests in real property survive a “free and clear” sale of the property under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said “no,” holding that section 365(h) did not protect the interest of the lessee in the context of a section 363 sale when there had been no prior formal rejection of the lease under section 365.

A recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals may have muddied the question of the impact of collateral rent assignments on a debtor’s ability to re-organize under chapter 11.

The wait is almost over!

As reported in our recent blog Rules of Engagement for Creditors, the Insolvency Rules (England and Wales) 2016 (“IR2016”) are about to arrive heralding procedural reforms effective (subject to transitional provisions) on 6th April 2017.