Judge Agnello in a recent court decision[1] concluded that a company must pay its debts within the period of 12 months from the start of an MVL, and if it does not, the liquidator is obliged to convert the MVL to a company voluntary liquidation (CVL).
What does it mean to be “bankrupt?” The Fourth Circuit recently held oral arguments to determine this question in Bestwall, LLC v. The Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants.[1] There, the Asbestos Claimants asserted that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the “Bankruptcy Court”) lacks jurisdiction over Bestwall, because Bestwall is not “bankrupt” as defined by the United States Constitution.
The Insolvency Service have held a long-established view that creditors are classed as such at the point of entry into an insolvency process. This view was brought into question and challenged in the cases of Pindar and Toogood where in essence the judges (after considering the definition of secured creditor in s248 of the Insolvency Act 1986) determined for slightly different reasons that paid secured creditors did not fall within the s248 definition for the purposes of obtaining consent to an administration extension.
Since the cases of Avanti and UKCloud we have seen more arguments around the classification of a charge – is a typical floating charge asset actually subject to a fixed charge? Is a fixed charge really floating? Much depends on the control the charge holder asserts, but we have seen some novel claims. The position can be quite grey leaving officeholders having to work out how to allocate realisations.
In the recent appeal of Yerbury v Azets[1], the Court reiterated that an employer of an LPA receiver cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of a receiver during a receivership and helpfully clarified the parameters of the receiver’s role by virtue of their appointment.
In this blog, we delve further into the High Court decision and its implications for receivers and their appointees.
The recent High Court case of Stacks Living Limited & Ors v Shergill & Ors (“Stacks Decision”) has further highlighted the importance of taking advice and documenting decisions following the much-publicised decision of Wright v Chappell (the “BHS Case”).
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided United States v. Miller, which resolved a circuit split over whether a trustee could avoid federal tax payments under section 544(b) of the United States Bankruptcy Code.[1] In this case, a trustee utilized section 544(b) to claw back tax payments under Utah’s state fraudulent transfer statute. Ordinarily, an action under Utah law against the federal government would be barred by sovereign immunity; however, section 106(a) of Bankruptcy Code contains a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to section 544(b). Despite this, the Supreme Court held that the sovereign immunity waiver under section 106(a) only applies to section 544 itself, and not to the state-law claims “nested” within the statute.
On 14 November 2024, the UK government announced several changes to its existing sanctions regulations via the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2024. As of 14 May 2025, by expanding the definition of “relevant firms” subject to financial sanctions reporting, Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) are now legally required to adhere to reporting obligations in the UK. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (“OFSI”) have published guidance (the “Guidance”) to support the affected sectors in navigating the new reporting requirements. This blog post will provide an overview of the new reporting requirements for IPs.
As insolvency practitioners (IPs) it is not unusual to have to consider the terms of a particular contract, whether that is enforcing the terms of that for the insolvent entity or considering the rights of the third party as against the company, and in some cases, it is necessary for IPs to enter into a contract themsleves.
This blog from our colleagues in IP & Technology highlights how easy it can be to (inadvertently) create a legally binding contract – in this case by WhatsApp – standing as a reminder to IPs that exchanges of messages could be relevant when considering a third party contract, but also that care should be taken when exchanging messages so as not to create a binding contract when not intended.
We have seen an increasing number of contested restructuring plans (RPs) over the last quarter. With a notable shift of RPs into the litigation arena, and some gentle push back from the judiciary about timetabling and use of court time the judiciary has published a draft practice statement for consultation outlining new case management requirements for those proposing a plan.
