Litigation between Mr and Mrs Brake, Axnoller Events Ltd and various other parties has been the subject of a significant number of judgments covering a wide range of legal issues. The underlying facts are convoluted but can be briefly summarised for the purpose of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 as follows.

The application before HHJ Paul Matthews, sitting as Judge of the High Court, in Patley Wood Farm LLP & Ors v Kristina Kicks & Anor [2022] EWHC 2973 (Ch) was essentially a challenge to the decision of trustees in bankruptcy not to intervene in an appeal in possession proceedings between the bankrupts and a Chedington, a creditor, following the purported sale of the bankrupts’ interest in a property known as West Axnoller Cottage.

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.

On June 30, the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden administration did not have authority to forgive student loans under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act). Despite this defeat, the Biden administration is still working to reduce the burden of student loans. Advocates for student loan relief argue that student loans can be a crushing form of debt in part because of their treatment in bankruptcy. It is the common belief that student loans, unlike other forms of unsecured debt, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Sometimes we blog about cases with unusual fact patterns. The cases don’t stand for any overriding legal principle. They might not have application beyond the parties to them. But they can make for good reading, giving insight into how judges analyze and rule on the issues at stake.

A recent decision in the District of Delaware is such a case. In re Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10603, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1557 (Bankr. D. Del. June 15, 2023).

When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.

King v Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund [2023] EWHC 1408 (Ch) deals with a number of bases on which Susan King, James King and Anthony King each applied to set aside statutory demands for £219,700.00 made by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund. That sum was payable under an interim costs order made against the Kings by Cockerill J following a successful strike out of conspiracy proceedings. Those in turn arose out of a misrepresentation case.

The question for the court in Durkan & Anor v Jones (Re Nicholas Mark Jones) [2023] EWHC 1359 (Ch) was whether it had jurisdiction to make a bankruptcy order.

Official Receiver v Kelly (Re Walmley Ash Ltd and Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) [2023] EWHC 1181 (Ch) deals with an application for a disqualification order under s 6 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against Andrew John Kelly arising out of his conduct as a director of Walmsley Ash Ltd which was wound up by the court on an HMRC petition in 2017. The conduct relied on was that:

We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.