Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.
The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.
The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.
Exceptions to the prohibition
The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.
The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.
The out of Court appointment processes are broadly similar to the processes under the Insolvency Rules 1986 with some minor amendments. The most significant change is the abolition of the prescribed forms for appointment documents.
Whatever type of appointment (out of Court by company/directors, out of Court by Qualifying Floating Charge Holder ("QFCH"), application to Court), the Consent to Act form and contents is dealt with by r3.2.
Appointment out of Court by directors/the Company
(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)
(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P reverses the bankruptcy court’s order granting the U.S. Trustee a second extension of the deadline to file a nondischargeability complaint and reverses the subsequent judgment denying the debtor a Chapter 7 discharge. The court finds that the U.S. Trustee failed to establish sufficient cause for an additional extension under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b). Opinion below.
Judge: Harrison
Attorneys for U.S. Trustee: Amy L. Good, Scott Robert Belhorn, Sharon Nollsch
Attorney for Debtor: Lee Raymond Kravitz
This briefing note addresses the effect of the Insolvency Rules 2016 ("Rules") to the: (i) Electronic delivery of documents; and (ii) use of Websites to deliver documents.
Consolidation of the Rules
The Rules in relation to Electronic delivery of documents and use of websites have been applied as follows, namely:
Rules 18.15 to 18.38 of the Insolvency Rules 2016 deals with remuneration principles, fixing of remuneration, challenges by creditors and applications to Court by officeholders in relation to their remuneration placing all the rules surrounding remuneration in one place as opposed to dotted around the various procedures in the old rules.
Principles
Rule 18.16 sets out the general principles as to how administrators, liquidators and trustees can be remunerated and is largely unchanged from the old rules.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2017)
The court grants the debtor’s motion for a hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(1). The debtor had made 44 plan payments but was unable to make the 16 remaining payments. The court finds the recent change in the debtor’s economic circumstances warranted the relief requested. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Steven P. Taylor
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)
Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost
Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen