Setting aside a transaction on the basis that it was an extortionate credit transaction under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986 or the “Act”) is difficult. A bargain may be hard or even unreasonable, but that does not make it extortionate. The most important term to any credit transaction is usually the interest rate and that is most likely to be subject to scrutiny when considering whether or not a credit transaction contained grossly exorbitant terms.

A recent decision of the Court has confirmed that the recipient of funds from an individual who is subject to a bankruptcy petition can be construed as having provided value where that value is given to a third party (and not to the bankrupt personally).

Roger Elford and Jessica Williams in the Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency team at Charles Russell Speechlys LLP acted for a successful Respondent, Howard de Walden Estates Limited, in these proceedings.

The Background

The Government has announced proposals for retrospective changes for the urgent reforms to UK insolvency law, designed to protect companies and their directors during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Wrongful trading

These changes will include a temporary suspension (to the end of June 2020) of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to wrongful trading, subject to passage of the upcoming Corporate Insolvency & Governance Bill through Parliament in the coming weeks.

On Saturday 28 March, Secretary of State for the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Alok Sharma, announced a proposal for the urgent reforms to UK insolvency law, designed to protect companies and their directors during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Wrongful Trading (section 214 Insolvency Act 1986)

It was announced that there would be a temporary suspension of section 214 Insolvency Act 1986 in relation to wrongful trading.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt