The Calcutta Cup represents a long and competitive rugby rivalry between the great neighbours that are Scotland and England. Last year, Scotland retained the trophy in a hard-fought match at Twickenham with victory being sealed in the last minute with a try from Duhan van der Merwe who, being 6ft 4 inches, blond and in the peak of physical health, is a fair representation of your average Scotsman.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the overarching name given to the different processes used to determine disputes between parties out with a formal court process. ADR is becoming more popular, but is not as widely used by insolvency practitioners (IPs) in the UK to resolve disputes arising from an insolvency event as it perhaps should be.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

An individual ceased trading his Scaffolding firm in Sunderland in December 2019 and immediately began employment with a third party; despite which the enterprising former scaffolder thought it would be a good idea in May 2020 to apply for a £50,000 bounce back loan from HM Government in respect of his previous business. Unsurprisingly, the funds were not applied to the Scaffolding business (which had ceased trading) and instead were used to repay third parties.

The recent Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies case examines how a family home is dealt with following sequestration of an individual. The sheriff's comments about the case suggest there could be room for improvement in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to make the process clearer for everyone involved.

Case background

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

The question of whether or not a trustee in bankruptcy can sell a family home to help recover the debts of an individual varies on a case-by-case basis. The law in Scotland provides protection to a debtor's immediate family, but permission can still be granted to sell the property – if five factors are considered first.

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.