The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (SoS) presented winding up petitions against Fabcourt Developments Limited, Clarkson Murphy Partners Limited, Hall Contracting Services Limited and Sentor Solutions Commercial Ltd (the Companies).

The SoS may present a petition for a company to be wound up where it appears that it is expedient in the public interest and if the court thinks it just and equitable to do so.

Background

The concept of “property of the estate” is important in bankruptcy because it determines what property can be used or distributed for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors. Defined by section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, “property of the estate” broadly encompasses the debtor’s interests in property, with certain additions and exceptions provided for in the Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 541. Difficult questions can arise in a contractual relationship between a debtor and a counterparty about whether an entity actually owns a particular asset or merely has some contractual right.

We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.

Since 2021, soaring wholesale energy costs have caused concern for businesses already battling a difficult economic climate with wider inflationary pressures, such as higher interest rates.  

The government's mini-budget on 23 September 2022 cancelled the planned increase in the corporate tax rate (the proposed increase from 19% to 25%). This will assist those companies which are profit-making, but without support to reduce the cost base, this provides limited relief to others.

To encourage parties to transact with debtors in bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Code in corporate bankruptcies provides highest priority to “administrative expenses,” which include “the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b); id. § 507(a)(2).

We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.

A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” While Congress has general authority to establish a bankruptcy system, bankruptcy laws must be “uniform.” But not every aspect of the bankruptcy system is the same across every judicial district.

In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Ltd (in liquidation) Lock v Stanley (in his capacity as liquidator) and another [2021] EWHC 2970 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that to reverse a liquidator's assignment of claims to a third party, the claimant must satisfy a 'formidable' test.

Background

The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.