In this article Leon Breakey explains some of the issues that can arise when an English bankruptcy order is issued and the debtor owns property in Scotland.

When an English debtor with an interest in heritable property in Scotland is made bankrupt under English law, a crucial question arises: how can the English bankruptcy order be enforced in Scotland? This article explores this issue, highlighting the potential risks for trustees and the solution provided by Section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986.

The Issue: English Bankruptcy Orders and Scottish Property

A recent decision of the Commercial Sheriff Court at Perth in the case of Priority Construction UK Limited v Advanced Material Processing Limited, reported at [2024] SC PER 48, has confirmed the position in relation to the proper basis for liquidation petitions to be brought against debtor companies. The moral of this story is that liquidation petitions should not be used to try to recover a validly disputed debt - something that all creditors and practitioners should be alert to.

The facts

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld a trial court’s rejection of a borrower’s allegations that a mortgagee and its servicer violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by allegedly inaccurately reporting her loan as delinquent following the borrower’s successful completion of her bankruptcy plan, allegedly rejecting her subsequent monthly payments, and filing a foreclosure action based on the supposed post-bankruptcy defaults.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the anti-modification provision in the federal Bankruptcy Code applies to loans secured by mixed-use real properties, such as the large parcel at issue here which functioned both for commercial use and as the debtor’s principal residence.

A copy of the opinion in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association is available at: Link to Opinion.

A look back at bankruptcy trends and litigation in 2023 reveals a spike in bankruptcy filings driven by economic factors and fallout from the pandemic while in upper courts several interesting cases were decided involving proofs of claim, stay violations, and discharge issues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several conversion claims brought by the estate of a deceased account holder against a bank, holding that one of the conversion claims was time-barred, and that the estate did not have standing to pursue the remaining conversion claims as the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the bank.

A copy of the opinion in Muff v. Wells Fargo Bank NA is available at: Link to Opinion.

In an appeal involving a Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed that the borrower’s use of the 20-year treasury bond rate sufficiently ensured that the total present value of future payments to the lender over the plan period equaled or exceeded the allowed value of the claim.

A copy of the opinion in Farm Credit Services of America v. William Topp is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance and fraudulent transfer claims, holding that a debt purchase and sale agreement between a bankrupt debtor, its original creditor, and its new creditor was not avoidable because it did not qualify as a transfer of “an interest of the debtor in property.”

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit determined that the transaction had no effect on the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions played no role.

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 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.