In Re Mark Irwin Forstater [2015] BPIR, the petitioning creditor presented a bankruptcy petition against the debtor, Mr Forstater, on 13 June 2014. It first came before the court on 30 July 2014, when it was adjourned to allow the  debtor to take legal advice. At the adjourned hearing on 12 August 2014, the debtor indicated that he intended to pursue an IVA. The hearing was adjourned again to await the outcome of a meeting of creditors. The meeting of creditors was itself adjourned for 14 days from 1 September 2014 to 15 September 2014.

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders

On Monday, we released three new research indices tracking distress in U.S. financial markets.   

The indices use Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing data to signal underlying financial distress which may not be reflected in broader stock market averages.  The indices and the full quarterly report can be found at www.distressindex.com.

The “FBT/TrBK Distress Indices” comprise three different measurements based on Chapter 11 filings:

Costs are the price that creditors pay for an insolvency practitioner’s (“IP”) expertise and time in dealing with a trading bankrupt or insolvent business. However, where the assets are insufficient to meet the existing debts, the imposition of a practitioner’s fees and expenses being paid out in priority can send some “over the edge” and all practitioners have the scars to prove it. This article explores the developing general principles and major pitfalls and how to avoid them.

The Court of Appeal’s ruling in Neumans LLP v Andrew Andronikou & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 916 has provided some useful guidance to insolvency practitioners on the courts’ approach to administration and liquidation expenses.

Pre-match warm up

As electronic discovery has become more prevalent and voluminous, national standards for the preservation of evidence have evolved dramatically in the past decade. Through a proliferation of electronic discovery orders involving discovery compliance, courts have addressed when the duty to preserve evidence arises, signifying a party’s duty to issue a “litigation hold.” Courts have not answered, however, whether a party can withhold documents generated before issuing a litigation hold on the basis of work product protection.

On the somewhat unusual occasions when your judgment debtor has assets, the question turns to how do I maximize my judgment and collect every penny legitimately owed to my client?  Here are some thoughts:

Following the announcement that Crystal Palace Football Club had gone into administration in January 2010, the club's administrator wanted to sell the club as a going concern. Shortly after he  signed a sale and purchase agreement with the newly formed Crystal Palace Football Consortium (CPFC) he discovered that the club had severe financial problems and decided to 'mothball' the club during the out of season period, in the hope of selling it in the future. However CPFC then decided to withdraw its offer for the club and on 28 May 2010 the four claimants were made redundant.

Recent Second Circuit and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether or not the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for post-petition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors. Specifically, while not all Circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 United States Supreme Court decision Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of North America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S.