The Calcutta Cup represents a long and competitive rugby rivalry between the great neighbours that are Scotland and England. Last year, Scotland retained the trophy in a hard-fought match at Twickenham with victory being sealed in the last minute with a try from Duhan van der Merwe who, being 6ft 4 inches, blond and in the peak of physical health, is a fair representation of your average Scotsman.
The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is the overarching name given to the different processes used to determine disputes between parties out with a formal court process. ADR is becoming more popular, but is not as widely used by insolvency practitioners (IPs) in the UK to resolve disputes arising from an insolvency event as it perhaps should be.
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.
An individual ceased trading his Scaffolding firm in Sunderland in December 2019 and immediately began employment with a third party; despite which the enterprising former scaffolder thought it would be a good idea in May 2020 to apply for a £50,000 bounce back loan from HM Government in respect of his previous business. Unsurprisingly, the funds were not applied to the Scaffolding business (which had ceased trading) and instead were used to repay third parties.
The recent Accountant in Bankruptcy v Peter A Davies case examines how a family home is dealt with following sequestration of an individual. The sheriff's comments about the case suggest there could be room for improvement in the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985, to make the process clearer for everyone involved.
Case background
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.