On the occurrence of bankruptcy, the trustee must take immediate possession or control of the bankrupt’s property, as that property is now “available” to the trustee for the benefit of creditors generally and vests in the trustee for that purpose.  However, a bankrupt may not always co-operate with his or her trustee and will often refuse to deliver up property to the trustee or even allow the trustee on to the premises where the property is held.

A relevant example

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia decision of Dubow v Official Receiver & Anor [2013] FMCA 217 confirms that the Court’s discretion to annul bankruptcy is limited.  Even if the discretion is enlivened, it appears that the Court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion where the bankruptcy has come about by the bankrupt’s own petition.

In brief - Bill implements reforms proposed in options paper

In the case of Wilson v McNamara [2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) the High Court of England and Wales (the Court) considered whether the EU principle of freedom of establishment requires that a pension held in another EU member state (Ireland) should be excluded from a bankruptcy estate under UK law in the same manner as a UK pension would be in a UK bankruptcy. Mr Justice Nugee decided in order to decide the case the Court needed to refer a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on a question of EU law.

El tribunal de un Estado miembro que conoce del procedimiento de insolvencia tiene competencia exclusiva para conocer de las acciones revocatorias ejercitadas dentro del mismo

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 14 de noviembre de 2018

In the context of globalisation, companies are often active not only in the country of incorporation but also in several other legal systems. If a company fails, there is a need for rules that make the insolvency proceedings predictable. In the EU there are two current regulations1 to take into account, one applicable before and one after 24.06.2015.

Cross-border insolvency in the EU

A common experience of most European insolvency law systems is the legislators‘ constant swinging backwards and forwards in their attempts to find a balance between the interests of the creditors (which inspired the legislator when insolvency laws were enacted for the first time in1942 in Italy) with those of the debtor and its owners, as well as the need to protect jobs and rescue viable businesses for the benefit of the economy as a whole. The first Italian insolvency law was enacted in 1942, and was modelled on the German Konkursordnung.

The Italian Government has been delegated to enact a comprehensive restatement of the whole set of rules of insolvency procedures, with specific innovative addresses regarding (to mention only the most important) the concordato preventivo procedure, venue rules, an out-of-court mediation alert process to timely address a risk of insolvency, new forms of security and a streamlined set of priorities among creditors

Introduction

Regulation 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015

With commercial activities increasingly having an impact across borders in the European market, it has become increasingly necessary to introduce supranational legislation to regulate those activities. In particular, there is a need to make cross-border insolvency proceedings convenient, consistent, effective and efficient across Europe.

The pre-pack procedure is not having an easy time of it. In a previous blog, we reported that the advocate general of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had concluded that the Dutch pre-pack procedure cannot be regarded as bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings, and that the provisions for transfer of undertaking therefore also apply to pre-packs. The ECJ has now confirmed his standpoint.