Having launched the original version three years ago, we have refreshed our Safeguarding Your Business guide as an eBook. The guide assists clients in protecting themselves either proactively or reactively in respect of a counterparty’s insolvency with new sections on trusts and examples of how we have helped, using some of the principles raised.

Addressing a novel issue in In re: International Oil Trading Company, LLC, 548 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied in part an involuntary debtor’s motion to compel production of communications between the judgment creditor who had filed the involuntary bankruptcy petition and the petitioner’s litigation funder. The Court found that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection were applicable to certain disclosures made to the litigation funder, a non-lawyer third-party.

The Facts

A owned two properties, one of which had been divided into two separately rateable properties for council tax purposes. R presented a bankruptcy petition against A based on a purported debt of £14,097.59 owed by A in respect of unpaid council tax for which it had obtained liability orders from the Magistrates Court.

Key points

Rights under s23, s24 and s31 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “Act”) can only be pursued by the spouses themselves. Consequently, any ongoing action brought pursuant to those sections of the Act does not vest in the trustee in bankruptcy on appointment.

The facts

Key point

Whilst a winding up petition is not the appropriate forum to conduct a “mini trial”, the court is not bound to dismiss the petition if the dispute raised by the debtor company lacks substance.

The facts

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has issued a call for evidence following the publication of a critical p

Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others

Insolvency professionals will welcome the High Court's decision in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2014] which is clear authority that the onus is upon retention of title claimants, not administrators, to locate and identify retention of title goods. The court made clear that to require the administrator to identify retention of title goods would be "totally unrealistic and practically unworkable."