The recent High Court judgment in Re CGL Realisations Limited (In Liquidation) in favour of Geoff Carton-Kelly as additional liquidator of failed electrical retailer Comet ordered the company’s former French parent, Darty, to pay over £100m to restore the preferential repayment of an intercompany loan owed to Darty in the run-up to Comet’s sale shortly before its insolvency. The additional liquidator was appointed in 2018 by the court specifically to investigate the circumstances of Comet’s sale in advance of its demise in 2012.

The costs regime in insolvency litigation is outdated and not fit for purpose, especially when it comes to the clawback claims designed to allow officeholders to restore the insolvent estate when assets have been deliberately dissipated. Many such claims can become uneconomical to run, especially where recipients of dissipated assets have no desire to preserve them but every incentive to diminish them with their own costs. Often a sale or assignment is the last resort to seek justice against wrongdoers in such situations.

Another interesting summary in the Times reporting on the staggering levels of fraud committed against the UK taxpayer during the pandemic. Whilst the Insolvency Service are clearly doing their best to hold fraudsters to account through disqualification orders and similar punitive measures, it appears that we are no closer to a financial recovery of any meaningful value, or at the very least imposing real financial pain on those who took advantage of the country’s generosity in the face of the unprecedented challenges of the Covid pandemic.

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.

One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.