In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

In Day v The Official Assignee as Liquidator of GN Networks Ltd (in Liq) [2016] NZHC 2400, the High Court rejected a claim that the funding arrangement at issue constituted maintenance or champerty.

The Delaware State Legislature recently amended Article IV, section 11 of the Delaware Constitution to add United States Bankruptcy Courts to the expanding list of courts and agencies that may certify questions to the Delaware Supreme Court. The list already included other Delaware courts, the United States Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, or the highest appellate court of any other state. See Del. Const. art. IV, § 11(8).

In re Leslie Controls, Inc., (Bankr. D. Del., Case No. 10-12199, 2010)

CASE SNAPSHOT

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court"), recently in In re Leslie Controls, Inc., Bankr. D. Del., Case No. 10-12199, expounded on whether attorney-client and attorney work-product privileged documents remained protected from discovery under the common interest doctrine. The common interest doctrine permits counsel representing different clients with similar legal interests to share information without having to disclose that information to others.