To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.

ISDA has written to Treasury on its plans to make insolvency regulations in relation to investment banks. It supports Treasury's plan to take legislative steps only if market practice and regulatory approaches do not work. It endorses the view that sophisticated counterparties should have as much flexibility as possible. It notes the interaction of any regime for investment banks with existing regimes must be clear but does not currently see a compelling case for changes to the current regime.

The courts have the power to and increasingly will make a civil restraint order where an individual persistently issues claims that are totally without merit.

Treasury has made a new set of Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations that change the insolvency regime that applies to RIEs and RCHs. The Regulations amend several existing pieces of legislation including Part VII Companies Act 1989 and the 1991 Regulations. The changes include:  

Where a debtor's assets exceed his liabilities, the onus is on the debtor to prove he can not pay his debts if a creditor seeks to annul the bankruptcy order.

In Paulin v Paulin and another, the defendant petitioned for his own bankruptcy claiming he was unable to pay his debts. The claimant applied for the order to be annulled claiming the defendant could afford to pay his debts and was deliberately attempting to defeat her claims in the matrimonial proceedings.

Where the entirety of a debt is not included in an agreement to settle, a creditor can continue to prove in a bankruptcy for the balance.

An intervening bankruptcy will not defeat a charging order where the bankruptcy was entered into in an attempt to frustrate the charge.