The government recently published its response to its earlier consultation on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague 2019 or the convention).

The court has the power to challenge any decision of the officeholder in an insolvency process on application by a dissatisfied party. The ambit of that power depends upon the nature of the insolvency process but, broadly, the following categories of people will be entitled to apply:

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.

Letting a single property for a limited period of time can amount to “carrying on business” for the purposes of section 265(2)(b)(ii) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), as confirmed in the recent case Durkan v Jones [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch).

Background

The recent judgment in City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) serves as a useful reminder of the extent of, and principles governing, the English court’s jurisdiction to wind up a company on the basis of inability to pay its debts.

Background

City Gardens Limited (C), and DOK82 Ltd (D), had entered into a “memorandum of understanding” (MoU) in relation to a significant debt owed by D to C.

We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.

In Re Scherzade Khilji (in bankruptcy) the court provided useful guidance on when the three-year "use it or lose it" limitation period to realise a bankrupt’s primary place of residence (provided by section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986) commences.

Background

This case concerns the property interests of Ms Scherzade Khilji (Ms Khilji), who was declared bankrupt on 2 July 2018. Her trustee in bankruptcy was appointed on 7 August 2018 (the trustee).

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

Amidst the cost of living crisis, businesses are folding in record numbers, with barely a week passing without news of a big company casualty. Paperchase is the latest retailer to collapse into administration, with the business being snapped up by Tesco for sale in its superstores and 820 jobs reportedly at risk. So how can we identify the businesses that are in the danger zone and could be heading for insolvency?

1. Profit warnings