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
Turns out, it depends on who you ask. Judge Bernstein said no. Recently, Judge Glenn said yes, but only for causes of action that resemble actual fraudulent transfers. It is unusual for the bankruptcy judges in Manhattan to disagree with each other, so let’s take a look at the issue.
Background
In a first, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the Arcapita Bank case had to decide whether Shari’a compliant investment agreements, providing for Murabaha and Wakala transactions, qualify for the safe harbor protections provided in the bankruptcy code for securities contracts, forwards and swaps. The court held that they do not. Since the opinion runs about 100 pages long, we attempt to distill some very basic facts concerning Shari’a compliant transactions and point to important holdings made by the court.
Shari’a Compliant Transactions
Last year, temporary changes to the bankruptcy process were brought in by the Scottish Government, to help individuals financially impacted by the pandemic. Scottish ministers have now introduced the Bankruptcy (Miscellaneous amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2021, to make some of those changes permanent.
The main purpose of these measures is to improve access to minimal asset process bankruptcy ( "MAP" a form of bankruptcy typically aimed at people with low income and few assets) and to reduce the cost for debtors seeking bankruptcy more widely.
In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.
Background
On 26 March 2021, amendment to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (the Regulations) will come into force.
The purpose of the Regulations is to extend some of the temporary measures introduced by The Corporate Insolvency & Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), to assist companies that are struggling to deal with the ongoing economic ramifications of pandemic-related restrictions.
These Regulations apply across the UK, including Scotland.
In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit closed the door on triangular setoffs, ruling that the mutuality requirement under Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and requires that the debt and claim sought to be setoff must be between the same two parties. In re: Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 20-1136 (3d. Cir. 2021).
Background
The majority of the building and engineering contracts that we encounter (and draft) require some form of performance security from the contractor, whether this is a parent company performance guarantee granted by the contractor's ultimate holding company, or a performance bond granted by a third party surety or a bank for a capped sum. Indeed most, if not all, standard form contracts provide for these forms of security, even if only as an option.
Key Takeaways