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

In Re Proex Logistics, 2025 ONSC 51, Justice Steele of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) recently made a number of holdings related to the process for trustees accepting claims in a bankruptcy and other parties seeking to challenge those decisions. The Court held that:

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

Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Court determined that while disgorgement orders made by the British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) survive bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), administrative penalties may not.

11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.

Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?

• §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).

Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?

Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?

The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]

Facts

Debtor is an automotive repair shop.

Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.