Mehers v Khilji [2023] EWHC 298 (Ch) is an interesting case about the bankruptcy “use it or lose it” provision enshrined in s 283A Insolvency Act 1986. The provision gives a trustee in bankruptcy three years to decide what, if anything, to do about an interest in a property which is the home of the bankrupt, the bankrupt’s spouse or civil partner, or a former spouse or civil partner of the bankrupt and which forms part of the bankrupt’s estate.

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 crypto winter has brought a flurry of bankruptcy filings into the digital asset space. As pioneering cryptocurrency platforms collide with the Bankruptcy Code, unprecedented questions of law have left customers asking a fundamental question: who owns my crypto?

This question is especially prevalent in cases where the debtor company’s platform offered custodial accounts to customers. Digital asset custodial accounts have unusual attributes that have revealed cracks in customer protection when custodians have filed for bankruptcy.

The Italian Government has approved the Legislative decree no. 19 of 2 March 2023 (the “Decree”) implementing in Italy the Directive (EU) 2019/2121 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019, amending the Directive (EU) 2017/1132 regarding, among other things, cross-border mergers, demergers and transformations.

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.

The UK High Court has considered and granted permission for a so called “credit bid” in an application by the Special Administrators of Sova Capital Ltd (in special administration) for a substantial portfolio of illiquid Russian securities. The transaction structure, involving the transfer of securities in exchange for the release of a £233m claim against the estate, is unprecedented in the UK where ‘credit bidding’ has no technical recognition.

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

Der BGH hat mit Entscheidung vom 27. Oktober 2022 (IX ZR 145/21) eine langwährende, insolvenzrechtliche Streitigkeit entschieden. In seiner Entscheidung nahm der BGH an, dass sich das Verwertungsrecht des Insolvenzverwalters nach § 166 InsO nicht auf sonstige Rechte erstreckt. Dies legt einen lange bestehenden und intensiv geführten Streit bei, ob sich das Verwertungsrecht neben beweglichen Sachen im Besitz des Verwalters und abgetretenen Forderungen auch auf sonstige Rechte wie insbesondere verpfändete Gesellschaftsanteile oder abgetretene oder verpfändete IP-Rechte erstreckt.

In its decision of October 27, 2022 (IX ZR 145/21), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled on a long-running dispute under German insolvency law. In its decision, the Court assumed that the insolvency administrator's right of realization under section 166 German Insolvency Code (InsO) does not extend to other rights.