In Pick v Sumpter and another, the first defendant's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an order for possession of the defendants' matrimonial home. At the hearing in May 2006, the evidence showed that the sum outstanding as at November 2005 was £25,571 but did not take into account legal costs. That sum was an estimate and did not take into account statutory interest on the bankrupt's debts beyond the date of the hearing, solicitor's costs of the possession hearing or any increase or decrease in the trustee's remuneration.

A question facing many landlords is whether, when a tenant company faces insolvency and shows no intention of continuing to trade from the premises, they should take back the property and seek to relet it?

There are several key issues here, including:

• rates liability
• mitigating losses
• ability to recover from third parties and former tenants.

A landlord's decision has often turned on the type of insolvency faced by the tenant.

If a liquidator disclaims the lease:

For debtors with limited liabilities, little surplus income and minimal gross assets, the new Debt Relief Order (DRO) is a further tool to consider in managing their debts. DROs, which came into force on 6 April 2009, are aimed at those who find they are unable to pay off their debts within a reasonable time but for whom other forms of debt relief, such as bankruptcy or Individual Voluntary Arrangements, are unavailable, or perhaps unaffordable.

What are the criteria for a DRO?

A DRO can be applied for where the debtor:

When there is a dispute as to which administrator should be appointed, the wishes of the creditor, for whose benefit the administration was, takes precedence.

Secured creditors with an unsecured shortfall cannot claim a share of the prescribed part of the floating charge realisations set aside for unsecured creditors under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986. This applies whether the secured creditor is the holder of a fixed or a floating charge (or both).

On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Third Circuit-affirmed settlement and dismissal of the chapter 11 cases of Jevic Transportation, Inc. (“Jevic”) and certain of its affiliates. SeeOfficial Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Grp./Bus. Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. grantedCzyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (U.S. 2016).

A discharge is effective whether or not the secured party intended to discharge that particular registration.  That was the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,1 which left JP Morgan unsecured for $1.5 billion as a result of a paperwork mix-up. Case law in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada suggests that the decision here would be the same.  Consequently, lawyer

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on Feb. 7, 2011, held that senior creditors could not “gift” part of their reorganization plan recovery to existing shareholders of the debtor.In re DBSD N. Am., Inc., __ F.3d __, 2011 WL 350480 (2d Cir. Feb. 7, 2011) (2-1) (Lynch, J.) (explainingIn re DBSD N. Am., Inc., 627 F.3d 496 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary opinion)). Its extensive 62-page opinion explained the court’s previous two-page summary ruling of Dec.

A court-approved pre-plan settlement that would have resolved a dispute between a Chapter 11 creditors’ committee and the debtor’s secured lenders over the lenders’ liens was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 5. Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Iridium Operating LLC). The settlement also would have funded massive litigation against the debtor’s former parent, Motorola Inc.

Motorola’s Successful Argument

The current cycle of Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcies involves many cases where the debtor seeks to achieve a balance-sheet restructuring by converting debt into equity. When consensus cannot be achieved, junior stakeholders (i.e., second lien creditors, unsecured creditors and/or equity) will often contest plan confirmation on the grounds that the proposed plan provides more than 100% recovery to the senior creditors. Valuation plays the central role in these cases.