In a long-running dispute arising out of a failure to supply gas, the English Commercial Court recently ordered that a prime London commercial property be transferred to the award creditor in part-satisfaction of a USD 2.6 billion arbitration award. In this article, we explore the case of Crescent Gas Corporation Ltd v National Iranian Oil Company & Anor [2024] EWHC 835 (Comm) and look at how the Insolvency Act was used to support enforcement of the award.

Over the decade since the implementation of the costs reforms proposed in Lord Jackson's Review of Civil Litigation Costs, lawyers and litigants have become accustomed to the courts actively managing the costs of disputes with a value up to £10 million. But the court also retains a discretion to apply the costs management regime in cases even above this level.

The Court of Appeal recently considered when precisely a company had given a preference within the meaning of the Insolvency Act 1986 – a question of timing which may impact on whether an insolvency practitioner can later unwind the preferential treatment for the benefit of creditors as a whole.

Here we look at what a preference is, and when it is deemed to be given.

Preferences

In a recent decision in the high value bankruptcy of Pramod Mittal (Mr Mittal), the Chancery division considered the rules on service of insolvency applications. The decision underlines the importance of adhering to service rules and giving as much notice as possible of insolvency applications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.