This judgment provides some guidance in relation to the scope and application of s283A IA86, which gives a bankrupt’s trustee in bankruptcy three years to take the necessary steps to realise or secure the bankrupt’s interest in the bankrupt’s home failing which that interest will cease to be part of the estate and will automatically revest in the bankrupt.
In this case the court was concerned with the meaning of the phrases (a) ‘an interest in’, (b) ‘a dwellinghouse’ and (c) ‘sole or principal residence’ under s283A(1).
CIGA 2020 which received the Royal Assent on 25 June 2020 has introduced several significant changes to UK insolvency legislation. Some of these are temporary measures enacted in response to the Coronavirus pandemic to mitigate the effects of the lockdown. Others, however, are permanent measures that result from a consultation process to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 begun in 2016 and concluded in 2018.
In this case the court considered a debtor’s application to set aside a bankruptcy order made in her absence (due to self-isolation in accordance with Covid-19 guidelines). It was held that the fact that the debtor was bankrupt meant she had no standing to apply to set the order aside. The court accepted that the debtor had a good reason not to attend court, and had acted promptly to set the order aside, however legal precedent going back to the 1990’s meant that only a trustee in bankruptcy could challenge the liability orders.
This case was heard before CIGA came into force but the provisions of the CIG Bill were known. Statutory demands were served on 27 March 2020 on the company in respect of debts due under loan agreements and a winding up petition had been presented. The company applied for an injunction to restrain the advertisement of the petition, claiming that although it was insolvent it had been prevented from obtaining funding, to enable it to propose a scheme of arrangement to its unsecured creditors, as a result of the pandemic.
The joint liquidators of a company, which had been compulsorily wound up in England and Wales, sought orders under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) for production of documents and an account of dealings with the company, in respect of companies in Italy. The question for the Court was whether s236 IA86 had extraterritorial effect. The problem for the court was that there was competing first instance decisions both for and against.
A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.
The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.
In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.
A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.
前记
执行是实现生效裁判文书债权的“最后关键一环”，是维护当事人合法权益的“最后一公里”。囿于执行领域纷繁复杂的法律规定以及各地司法实践的尺度不一，执行往往成为争议解决的重点及难点。我们长期专注于执行领域，代理了大量金融资管公司、上市公司的公证债权文书、诉讼/仲裁的执行案件。为此，基于执行实务经验，我们着眼于当前执行领域的热点难点问题，推出执行干货系列专题文章，敬请关注。
专题二
目前，法院通过网络拍卖平台处置财产已成为处置执行财产的主要方式，相比传统拍卖模式而言网络拍卖的效率可能更高，也更有利于保护债权的实现以及债务人的合法权益。近年来，越来越多的破产财产也同样通过网络拍卖平台高效处置。实践中，竞买人经常因为种种原因事后意图“悔拍”并寻求救济。对此，破产网络拍卖相关纠纷究竟属于何种性质？竞买人应选择什么程序进行救济？拍卖公告是否一律不得修改？本文结合司法实践对前述疑问进行单刀直入地解析。
破产网络拍卖的性质
The court held in this case that a costs order in favour of the debtor, in respect of a discontinued bankruptcy petition for the same debt, due to the petitioner, could be set off against the sums due in respect of a second bankruptcy petition brought against the debtor by the same petitioner. The debtor had argued that the petition should be stayed until the previous costs order had been paid.