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.

Payment Orders were originally introduced in the CPC as a fast track route for creditors holding a financial instrument, such as a letter of credit or cheque, to obtain judgment against their debtor for what is a simple and indisputable debt. Payment Orders were rarely issued by the onshore UAE courts. In 2018, Cabinet Resolution No 57 of 2018 (the “2018 Cabinet Resolution”) significantly expanded the scope of application of Payment Orders by extending them to all admitted debts rather than simply those arising out of financial instruments only.

• The judgment in Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in liquidation) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited recognised that insolvent parties have an unfettered right to adjudicate.
• In so doing the judgment opened the door for Insolvency Practitioners to use adjudication, or the threat of adjudication, to resolve disputes arising under construction contracts.

PRIOR TO BRESCO

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

Summary

The court's recent decision in Uralkali v Rowley [2020] EWHC 3442 (Ch) has significant practical considerations for insolvency practitioners conducting insolvency sales, as well as for relevant bidders/buyers looking for suitable acquisition opportunities.

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?

UPDATE ON TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

THE LANDLORD'S POSITION' TO CVAs v PRE-PACKS

There has been much press coverage in recent years on Tenant CVAs and the tempo on these has increased in recent weeks with the approval of CVAs for New Look, Pizza Express and Yo Sushi! amongst others.

The COVID-19 pandemic has already led to business failures and forced others into negotiations with lenders, landlords and other stakeholders. For many sectors, the crisis has reinforced or accelerated the challenges that they were already facing. Government support measures including loans, furlough and temporary legislative changes have delayed some of the usual pressure points, but as support is eased, many businesses will have to find cash from significantly reduced turnover to satisfy deferred liabilities or repay loans.