The deadline for obtaining an order to suspend discharge from bankruptcy is absolute, as confirmed in the recent case of Paul Allen (as Trustee in Bankruptcy) v Pramod Mittal (in bankruptcy) [2022] EWHC 762 (Ch).

Background

The High Court has provided useful guidance on the interplay between the JCT regime for payment and claims in insolvency proceedings, in the recent case of Levi Solicitors LLP v Wilson and another [2022] EWHC 24 (Ch).

The application

In Re AFM (1932) Ltd (in liquidation) [2021] EWHC 3460 (Ch) the court confirmed that where an applicant is already contractually entitled – as against another party - to be reimbursed, together with interest, by that other party in an amount equivalent to the value transferred by that applicant under a related transaction, there cannot be a transaction at an undervalue pursuant to section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

Facts

For a company with robust data protection and recovery practices, a ransomware attack may cause a few extra headaches, but it won’t wipe the company out. Companies without those protections in place, however, risk allowing ransomware to bankrupt their entire enterprise.

A recent order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Court”) allowed a debtor to reopen a completed auction based on a significantly more attractive, but untimely, bid. The late bid was approximately three times the cash consideration of the previously declared winning bid, and also provided for the additional containment of potential environmental risks. The decision is being appealed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “District Court”).

Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.

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

In a decision that will likely impact bankruptcy proceedings around the country, the Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of certiorari of David Hargreaves, which challenged the equitable mootness doctrine.¹ As a result, the concept of equitable mootness remains anything but moot.

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:

Following a government announcement on 16 June, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (the Regulations) have been laid before Parliament, coming into force on 22 June.