The judgment in a case is delivered later, after consideration.

Overview of avoidance actions The US Bankruptcy Code provides a debtor with rights to avoid certain transfers of property made by the debtor to third parties prior to the bankruptcy filing. The purpose of these avoidance powers is to permit the recovery of the transferred property for the benefit of the debtor’s estate and creditors. The US Bankruptcy Code defines ‘transfer’ broadly. Among other things, this definition encompasses payments, the creation of liens, and ‘each mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with property or with an interest in property...’ (11 U.S.C. § 101(54)). A debtor’s avoidance powers extend to several types of (but not all) transfers, with the two most common types of transfers subject to avoidance being fraudulent transfers and preferences (each described below). To recover property from a transfer subject to avoidance, the debtor must bring a lawsuit, known as an ‘avoidance action’, against the transferee. Avoidance actions are generally overseen by the bankruptcy court,

This Flowchart sets out the conditions that must be satisfied for a floating charge to be avoided. It should be read alongside Practice Note: Avoiding invalid floating charges under

An order preventing the disposal (whether by gift, sale, lease, charge or otherwise) of assets in circumstances where it is believed that a person may be attempting to do so in order to deprive another of the asset or to remove the assets from the courts' jurisdiction.

This Practice Note explains when a general assignment of book debts by a bankrupt prior to their bankruptcy is invalid. See also Practice Note: Unenforceability of liens over books and records. Where an individual is: • engaged in any business • enters into a general assignment of their existing

Although it may not be possible to prevent a claimant from issuing a claim for judicial review, the more robust the decision-making process employed by a public body, the easier it will be to persuade a court to dismiss the claim at an early stage. CPR 54.1(2)(a) defines a claim for judicial review as: ‘a claim to review the lawfulness of— (i) an enactment; or (ii) a decision, action or failure to act in relation to the exercise of a public function.’ This Practice Note deals with steps that a public body can take to protect itself against a successful judicial review challenge. It includes non-exhaustive checklists of considerations and good practice to help reduce successful judicial review permission applications. Decision-making and avoiding a judicial review Take care with decision-making Consider for instance: • whether the public body has sufficient information to make a decision • whether the public body has taken into account all material considerations • whether the public body has taken into account any irrelevant

This Checklist identifies measures which can be taken, some during the procurement process and others during the course of project, to help to reduce the risk of disputes arising on construction projects. During the procurement process • Choose the right procurement route Ensure that the correct procurement route is used for the particular circumstances. For example, if the employer wishes to retain control over design or materials, then a traditional contract may be more appropriate than a design and build contract. However, if a quicker start on site is required, then design and build may be preferred. See Practice Note: Choosing the right procurement method—construction projects. • Use the correct pricing structure Choose the appropriate pricing structure. For example, if the employer is looking for costs certainty, then a lump sum contract will be a better option than a prime cost contract. If a lump sum contract is used, avoid including too many provisional sum items (which will undermine the desired costs certainty). See Practice Notes: Pricing structures in construction contracts and Provisional sums. • Beware of underbidding Employers

Environment analysis: How can those dealing with carbon credit companies ensure they aren’t dealing with fraudsters? Chris Staples, partner at Linklaters, says it is important to make sure purchases are made in accordance to a robust standard.

Under section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), liquidators and administrators can avoid certain floating charges if: • the floating charge was created at the relevant time • in certain circumstances, the company was either insolvent at the time or as a cause of the transaction under which the floating charge was created • the value or so much of the consideration for the creation of the charge was not provided at the same time as, or after, the creation of the charge The overall aim of the section is to prevent creditors from obtaining an unfair advantage over other creditors (like trade creditors) at a time when the company's ability to repay its debts is in doubt. It is therefore similar to a preference claim, although it is the security over the debts that will be avoided as opposed to the actual repayment of the debt. In Re Comet Group Ltd (in liquidation), the judge described its purpose as ‘to prevent

This Checklist sets out a methodology to apply when considering how to avoid the scope of Article 101 TFEU when it appears that an agreement contains a restriction on competition. NOTE—This Checklist assumes the starting point is an agreement that, by its object or effect, restricts competition. It is aimed at guiding an assessment of whether such an agreement may nonetheless fall outside Article 101 TFEU. Is the agreement between two or more undertakings? The first question to consider is whether the agreement is made between two or more ‘undertakings’. EU competition law only applies to ‘undertakings’—ie types of economic entities that are involved in providing goods or services to the market on a commercial basis. For further information on the concept of an ‘undertaking’ and the meaning of an ‘economic activity’, see further: What is an undertaking? Agreements involving only one undertaking and/or those which are not engaged in an economic activity—instead performing tasks that are public or social in nature—will fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU. For further information

This Checklist sets out a methodology to apply when considering how to avoid the scope of the Chapter I prohibition under section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) when it appears that an agreement contains a restriction on competition. NOTE—This Checklist assumes the starting point is an agreement that, by its object or effect, restricts competition. It is aimed at guiding an assessment of whether such an agreement may nonetheless fall outside the Chapter I prohibition. Is the agreement between two or more undertakings? The first question to consider is whether the agreement is made between two or more ‘undertakings’. UK competition law only applies to ‘undertakings’—ie types of economic entities that are involved in providing goods or services to the market on a commercial basis. For further information on the concept of an ‘undertaking’ and the meaning of an ‘economic activity’, see further: What is an undertaking? Agreements involving only one undertaking and/or those which are not engaged in an economic activity—instead performing tasks that are public or social in nature—will

This Checklist sets out practical steps for senior managers within the scope of the FCA and PRA’s Senior Managers and Certification Regime (SM&CR) to help them fulfil their personal regulatory responsibilities and, ultimately, reduce the risk of regulatory enforcement action. What do senior managers need to do initially when commencing their role? On taking up a new role within a financial institution, senior managers should carry out a documented initial assessment of the risk management framework in place for their area of the business, within the first two to three months. To be clear, no matter how large the firm’s compliance or risk function is, the responsibility for regulatory compliance, including the design and effectiveness of the risk management framework, also lies with the senior manager responsible for that area of the business. This assessment will involve arranging meetings with the people in the business who have the best knowledge of how the relevant area was managed before the senior manager’s appointment (ideally including the predecessor