A bankruptcy judge in the Middle District of Florida recently sustained a Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to a non-Florida resident debtor’s attempted claim of the Florida homestead exemption. Although the debtor had lived in her Florida home for more than 20 years, she was not a United States citizen or a permanent resident with a so-called “green card.” Additionally, none of the debtor’s family members also living in the home were citizens or permanent residents.

In February 2020, just prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (Subchapter V) took effect.[1] Subchapter V amends Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to allow certain individuals and businesses with debts of less than $2,725,625 to file a streamlined Chapter 11 case with the goal to make small business bankruptcies faster and cheaper.[2]

Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases are most frequently filed by businesses. However, certain high-earning individuals whose debts are above the statutory debt limits to qualify for Chapter 13 can also file for Chapter 11 relief. In Chapter 11 cases, the debtor retains control of its operations as a debtor in possession (DIP) and has the benefits and duties that are held by a Chapter 7 trustee. However, if the debtor acts in bad faith or mismanages the bankruptcy estate during the course of the case, a Chapter 11 trustee may be appointed to operate the business going forward.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases are straight liquidations sought by debtors who wish to have most or all of their debts discharged. In Chapter 7 cases, the Chapter 7 trustee obtains control over the debtor’s assets and evaluates whether any equity exists that would offset the costs of selling those assets. If the bankruptcy estate will likely profit from selling the debtor’s assets, the Chapter 7 trustee will liquidate the assets and distribute the proceeds to creditors. This is called an “asset case.”

Earlier this year, Chapter 11’s new Subchapter V became a part of the Bankruptcy Code when the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) became effective.

The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.

The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.

In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.

Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.

What is set off?

Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.

In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:

Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal

The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.