In spite of its cross-border dimension, the subject matter and result of the hearing giving rise to the judgment in Re Khadzhi-Murat Derev (in Bankruptcy); Allen v Derev & Anor [2023] EWHC 387 (Ch) are conventional.

The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (Lac du Flambeau Band) found support from law professors specializing in federal Indian law as well as an assemblage of tribes and Native American groups in its bid before the U.S. Supreme Court to assert sovereign immunity from suit regarding alleged violations of the automatic stay. While they acknowledge that tribal immunity may be abrogated, they insist Congress must do so expressly and unequivocally.

Miles J’s judgment in Re Sova Capital Ltd [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch) will, like that of Jonathan Hilliard QC in Re Petropavlovsk Plc,be welcomed as a further example of the courts acting to assist insolvency practitioners selling assets in unusual circumstances.

Relief under ss 423-425 Insolvency Act 1986 is not limited to cases of insolvency, as the decision of David Edwards KC, sitting as a High Court judge in the Commercial Court, in Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat FZE & Ors ([2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)) demonstrates.

Following the important decision in Martlet Homes Ltd v Mulalley & Co Ltd [2022] (see our summary here), LDC (Portfolio One) Ltd v George Downing Construction

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes a debtor from discharging a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of the debtor’s own culpability. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, issued February 22, the Court concluded that “§ 523(a)(2)(A) turns on how the money was obtained, not who committed fraud to obtain it.”

NGI Systems & Solutions Ltd v The Good Box Co Labs Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch) records the court’s reasons for sanctioning a restructuring plan made between the defendant company, The Good Box Co Labs Limited, its members, and separate classes of its creditors pursuant to section 901F Companies Act 2006. It also deals with other matters arising out of the company’s administration.

On January 19, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order sanctioning a collections law firm for violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court in Skaggs v. Gooch (In re Skaggs) awarded the debtor $25,000 in attorneys’ fees based on a letter he received concerning a discharged debt.

Despite the “elegance” of the arguments challenging  the calling of creditors’ meetings on behalf of the former CEO, who argued that the rights of “B” shareholders including himself, would be adversely affected, Trower J found that as neither the contractual terms of the rights themselves nor their economic value would be affected by the plans, he would order calling of the meetings under section 901C(3) Companies Act 2006. There was no real change to the economic value for the B shareholders.  

On January 9, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own 39-year-old precedent to find that: (1) the definition of “transfer” for purposes of section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code depends on federal, not state, law; and (2) the date of “transfer” is the time at which the money passes to the creditor’s control.