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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a contrary trial court ruling and joined with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in holding that a Chapter 13 trustee is not entitled to a percentage fee of plan payments as compensation for her work in a Chapter 13 case when the case is dismissed prior to confirmation.

A copy of the opinion in Evans v. McCallister (In re Evans) is available at: Link to Opinion.

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:

The U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit recently held that, at a minimum, a substantial change in circumstances is required to justify modification of a bankruptcy plan under Section 1229.

The Eighth Circuit BAP also determined that the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the debtors met their burden of showing an unanticipated, substantial change in circumstances was not clearly erroneous, despite multiple changes by the debtor, nor was the bankruptcy court’s finding that the fourth modified plan was feasible and confirmable.

City Gardens Ltd v DOK82 Ltd [2023] EWHC 1149 (Ch) was a successful appeal against the decision of the district judge below to dismiss a winding up petition on several bases: first that the court had no jurisdiction to make an order because arrangements between the parties were subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause, secondly because they provided for the application of Hong Kong law rather than English law, thirdly by reason of disputes regarding certain other contractual terms, and finally by reason of an issue as to whether the company had a viable cross claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s lawsuit against a debt collector, holding that the consumer lacked Article III standing to sue because his allegations of ʺconfusion” and “alarm” were not sufficiently concrete to result in an injury in fact.

The judgment of Adam Johnson J in Re Great Annual Savings Company Ltd, (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 1141 (Ch) demonstrates again the rigorous approach the courts are taking in relation to the fulfilment of the conditions required to “cram down” dissenting creditors in restructuring plans as well as in the exercise of the court’s discretion to sanction them.

A claim under s 127 is restitutionary (see Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd v Bank of Ireland and Ahmed v Ingram), and in a case involving the payment of money is for unjust enrichment (see Officeserve Technologies Ltd v Annabel’s (Berkeley Square) Ltd).

Re Nasmyth Group Ltd (Re Companies Act 2006) [2023] EWHC 988 (Ch) sets out Leech J’s reasons for refusing to sanction a Part 26A restructuring plan.

The company acted as the holding company of engineering subsidiaries in the UK and elsewhere and provided administrative and treasury functions to the rest of the group.