Following an expedited trial, the High Court has rejected an application brought by a group of landlords known as the Combined Property Control Group (“CPC”) to challenge the company voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) proposed by Debenhams Retail Limited (“Debenhams”).

CPC challenged the CVA on five grounds. The judge in the case, Mr Justice Norris, held that four of the five grounds failed and directed certain “Forfeiture Restraint Provisions” be removed from the CVA as a result of the fifth.

Applications

Rule 12 sets out rules relating to applications, (excluding administration applications, winding up petitions and creditors' bankruptcy petitions) including:

Disclaimer - Rules 19.1 - 19.11

The Rules relating to Disclaimer remain largely unchanged, except for bankruptcy and liquidation being included in the same section and some minor updates to the Act. The deadlines for all actions remain unchanged.

19.8 - Application for permission to disclaim in bankruptcy (section 315(4))

The notes in this section refer to changes within the Act as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.

For the benefit of our clients and friends investing in European distressed opportunities, our European Network is sharing some current developments

Recent Developments

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 28, 2017)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017)

The district court dismisses the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and appealable. The creditor had filed an emergency motion for stay relief to proceed with acquiring title to the debtor’s real property through Indiana’s tax sale and tax deed procedures. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without prejudice. The district court holds that the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, in part because it was without prejudice and appeared to be a preliminary decision. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2017)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 10, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor on the trustee’s claims to avoid transfers of real property, but the court enters judgment in favor of the trustee on the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) and denies the debtor a discharge. The court finds that the debtor made a false oath on his statement of financial affairs with reckless disregard for the truth. The debtor had transferred property prior to his divorce but claimed those transfers were made as a result of the divorce. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

(7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment that certain real property of the debtor was exempt because it was held in a tenancy by the entirety under Illinois law. The creditor argued that the tenancy by the entirety was severed when the real property had been transferred to a trust prepetition. The Seventh Circuit examines applicable Illinois statutes and concludes that the transfer did not sever the tenancy by the entirety. Opinion below

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Debtor: Kofkin Law, Scott J. Kofkin

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.