The subject of gratuitous alienations is a problematic area for the property practitioner. Timing is all-important, and often it only becomes an issue for insolvency reasons retrospectively. Put simply of course, in lay terms a gratuitous alienation is no more than a gift, and there is nothing to prevent an owner of property gifting it to someone if he chooses.

In a recent decision issued by Lord Drummond Young, one of the Scottish insolvency judges in the Court of Session, useful guidance has been issued which will be of interest to practitioners having to deal with the, not uncommon, situation of a retiring practitioner and replacement with a current partner in the same firm.

A decision from the United States Supreme Court penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor adopted a broad reading of “actual fraud” in section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge debts “obtained by . . .

Plenty of ink has been spilled about how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall and the line of cases in which it sits. It is a challenging body of law for many reasons, but perhaps the most difficult reason is that the Court indicated that the scope of power that bankruptcy courts may be given today must be defined by reference to beliefs about the scope of judicial and other governmental powers at the time of the country’s founding, when divisions of governmental power were embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a creditor to obtain a judgment denying its debtor a discharge of debts incurred by false pretenses or actual fraud. However, if the debt itself was not incurred by actual fraud, but the debtor subsequently transfers his assets with the intent prevent its creditors from obtaining payment, may the creditor still obtain a judgment denying the debtor’s discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A)?

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 . . .

The Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Privy Council has held that a foreign default judgment can be enforced under the common law where a jurisdiction agreement in favour of that country can be implied or inferred. It is not necessary for there to be an express jurisdiction agreement: Vizcaya Partners Limited v Picard and another (Gibraltar) [2016] UKPC 5.

24 February 2014
[2014] EWCA Civ 180
Court of Appeal (Patten, Lewison and Sharp LJJ)

The fact that rent payable in advance had fallen due prior to the tenant company entering administration did not prevent that that rent being payable an expense of the liquidation of the tenant company under the salvage/Lundy Granite principle.  The amount of rent so payable was a question of fact.

28 February 2014
[2014] EWHC 540 (Ch)
Companies Court (Etherton C)

When is a company’s property not its property?