We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.
A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
The Court of Appeal has held that the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 do not impose a statutory trust in respect of funds received from e-money holders (who nonetheless enjoy priority status in respect of their creditor claims), providing some much-needed clarity on this issue for e-money institutions and their clients.
A link to the judgment can be found here.
Background
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” While Congress has general authority to establish a bankruptcy system, bankruptcy laws must be “uniform.” But not every aspect of the bankruptcy system is the same across every judicial district.
In what is believed to be the first reported decision on this issue, the High Court has allowed an appeal under section 205(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) against a decision of the Secretary of State to defer the dissolution of a company in liquidation.
A link to the judgement can be found here.
The facts
In FCA v Carillion [2021] EWCH 2871 (Ch), the High Court has confirmed that Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) enforcement action against Carillion Plc (in Liquidation) (Carillion) pursuant to certain provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) does not constitute an “action or proceeding” and therefore falls outside of the scope of the statutory stay imposed by section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
Section 130(2) of the Act
Regulations have been published which, from 1 October 2021, will change the current restrictions on the use of winding up petitions (the regulations). A link to the regulations can be found here.
In summary, the regulations partially lift the temporary restriction on the use of winding up petitions imposed by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and provide that:
The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.
A creditor in bankruptcy must normally file a proof of claim by a certain specified time, known as the bar date, or have its claim be barred.
The Insolvency Service published its quarterly insolvency statistics for the period January to March 2021 (Q1 2021) on 30 April 2021. By way of comparison, see our previous update on the Q4 2020 statistics here.
The published statistics for the first quarter of 2021 continue the downward trend seen in the previous 12 month period, with company insolvencies falling overall by 22% from the previous quarter.