The Insolvency Service (IS) has published a consultation paper on reforming debtor petition bankruptcy and early discharge from bankruptcy. The proposed reforms, which are aimed at speeding up the procedure and lowering costs, are to:
The making of a bankruptcy order alone will not deprive a judgment creditor of a final charging order where it is obtained before the bankruptcy order is made.
Introduction
A bankruptcy discharge hearing is the forum for the Court’s determination of a bankrupt’s application for discharge which has been opposed by one or more of: a creditor, the Trustee, or the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. This paper will aim to provide practical advice on preparing for and arguing an opposed discharge, whether from the perspective of the bankrupt, an opposing creditor, or the Trustee.1
Discharge
On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of the “actual fraud” exception to an individual debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. In relevant part, Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging “any debt . . . for money, property, [or] services . . . to the extent obtained, by . . .
A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank's motion to compel arbitration of a debtor's asserted violation of the court's discharge injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, 20 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). Finding a purported "inherent conflict between arbitration of [the debtor's] claim and the Bankruptcy Code," the Second Circuit reasoned that the bankruptcy court "properly considered the conflicting policies in accordance with law." Id., quoting In re United States Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631, 641 (2d Cir.
In 1984 a Third Circuit panel decided that the automatic stay did not apply to a right to payment which arose under applicable state law after a bankruptcy petition was filed. Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co., 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984). The Third Circuit tradition is that the holding of a panel in a precedential opinion is binding on subsequent panels. Until this year Frenville remained good Third Circuit law notwithstanding universal rejection by other circuits.
While bankruptcy law and tort law may not seem related, it is important to know if your client has ever gone through a bankruptcy and, if so, the terms of its plan of reorganization. A recent Eighth Circuit decision confirmed the importance of knowing the ins and outs of a client’s bankruptcy and the terms of the applicable plan.
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to an Order in Council dated July 4, 2008, July 7, 2008 was established as the date that certain of the provisions of S.C. 2005, c. 47 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2005") and S.C. 2007, c. 36 (the "Insolvency Reform Act 2007") came into force. The Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") as well as certain of the amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") made by the Insolvency Reform Act 2005 and the Insolvency Reform Act 2007 are, as a result, now in force.
In Official Assignee v Spencer, Mr Spencer's bankruptcy period was extended from three to six years due to his conduct and failure to comply with his obligations under the Insolvency Act 1967 (Act).
Mr Spencer was adjudicated bankrupt for the second time in August 2007 and was due to be discharged from bankruptcy in 2010. However, the Official Assignee objected to Mr Spencer's discharge and asked the Court to exercise its discretion and decline to order the discharge.