The recent High Court decision in Re Petropavlovsk Plc [2022] EWHC 2097 (Ch) considers the interaction of UK insolvency procedure and the sanctions regime imposed on Russia.
Background
Administrators were appointed to the English holding company of Russian gold mining group, Petropavlovsk Plc, in July 2022. The holding company was not sanctioned but sanctions had affected its ability to refinance and to pay its debts as they fell due.
In Re Swiss Cottage [2022] EWHC 1495 (Ch), junior creditors argued that administrators appointed to two companies had exceeded their powers and breached their duties when selling two properties.
Background
On 7 July 2022 the UK government launched a consultation on the implementation of two model laws adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNICTRAL): the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments and the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. The government claims that the consultation signals the UK's 'ongoing commitment to mutual cooperation and international best practice' in cross-border insolvencies.
Background
The court sanctioned one of two potential schemes of arrangement for Amigo Loans Ltd (Amigo) and approved a plan that provided for two possible outcomes.
Background
Amigo provided guarantor loans to customers with poor credit scores. Amigo owed customers and the Financial Ombudsman Service £375 million for customer complaints and was insolvent.
The High Court has sanctioned the restructuring plan of ED&F Holdings Ltd, providing further clarity on the exercise of its discretion to sanction a plan using cross-class cram down.
Background
At the convening hearing, the court ordered that five creditor and two member class meetings be held. All but one of the creditor classes approved the plan by large majorities.
Sanction hearing
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.
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?
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.