These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.
This summary covers:
1.Re PGH Investments Ltd [2021] EWHC 533 (Ch)
2.Re Mederco (Cardiff) Ltd [2021] EWHC 386 (Ch)
3.Lyle v Bedborough [2021] EWHC 220 (Ch)
4.Re TXU Ltd, Insolvency and Companies Court, 2 March 2021
5.Re Port Finance Investment Ltd [2021] EWHC 378 (Ch)
Oliver Hyams and Amy Held investigate the recent case of Islandsbanki Hf & Ors v Stanford [2020] EWCA Civ 480.
Background
This article follows the #HardwickeBrew on 28th May 2020 which looked at the Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill. If you would like to take part in future #HardwickeBrews, please sign up via our Events page.
Introduction
- This note reviews the provisions relating to the moratorium procedure for Great Britain under the draft Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (“CIGB”).
CIGB
Many businesses are—or soon will be—unable to meet their obligations. Not all businesses in distress are unsuccessful; sometimes, as in the economic circumstances arising from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the governmental directives tailored to address the related public health issues, even successful businesses must confront closures and steep declines in demand that could not have been anticipated, and may find it necessary or desirable to restructure their existing debt obligations.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever
(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener
Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer
The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.
Judge: Rogers
Appellant: Pro Se
Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt