And so, we continue the tale with the TIBs now triumphantly holding both the hard-won exequatur which expressly recognised the bankruptcy order and Trustee in Bankruptcy (TIB) and confirmed that all rights and powers were enforceable in France and judgment of the French criminal court which restored the seized criminal assets to the TIBs under the vesting provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. However, there were still clear and untested differences to obtaining automatic recognition under the EU Regulation on Insolvency proceedings (as Recast) (RIR).

Despite numerous obstacles and challenges faced along the way following Brexit (and its inevitable impact on tracing and recovering assets of UK based debtors overseas), we last left our brave cross-border recovery specialists triumphantly holding the hard-won exequatur judgment which expressly recognised the bankruptcy order and Trustee in Bankruptcy (TIB) and confirmed that all rights and powers were enforceable in France. Vive La France!

An article for Insolvency Practitioners and other insolvency specialists outlining the challenges and pitfalls of obtaining recognition of a Trustee in Bankruptcy to enable enforcement over assets in France in a post-Brexit and post-Covid cross-border insolvency landscape.

Introduction

Claims are just another asset of the insolvency practitioner: to gather in and realise for creditors’ benefit.

Success in managing insolvency estate claims however, is all about effective risk management. As a speculative contingent asset, the risks involved in handling claims as assets are greater and this risk requires constant evaluation as the claim progresses. Here are 6 issues to have under control throughout.

1. RECOVERABILITY – WHERE IS THE MONEY?

(Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel; Emanuel v Promontoria (Oak) Ltd; Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra; Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor; Bibby Invoice Discounting Ltd v Thompson Facilities and Project Management Services Ltd & Anor)

Introduction

This morning, the Court of Appeal has handed down landmark guidance on how far a defendant in litigation can look under the bonnet of their pursuer's commercial transactional documents and check out the mechanical parts of a deal to which the defendant is not party.

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

In keeping with the general theme of this 'new year', the insolvency division of the English High Court started 2021 in much the same way as it finished off 2020.

It followed up its landmark judgment in Re Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch) (Tokenhouse) with a decision in the case of Re NMUL Realisations Limited [2021] EWHC 94 (Ch) (NMUL), in ruling that failure to comply with procedural notice provisions did not invalidate the appointment of the administrators.

Avoiding a Cliff-edge of Insolvencies? Observations ferom the recent House Of Lords debate on extension of creditior restrictions