Definition of the bankruptcy estate and which assets vest in the trustee in bankruptcy

‘Bankruptcy estate’ is defined in section 283 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) as being, broadly speaking, property which either belonged to the bankrupt or in which the bankrupt had an interest, at the date the bankruptcy order was made.

Property which comprises the bankruptcy estate is widely defined by IA 1986, s 436, and includes ‘money, goods, things in action, land and every description of property wherever situated and also obligations and every description of interest, whether present or future or vested or contingent, arising out of, or incidental to, property’. This statutory definition is sufficiently broad to cover a wide spectrum of property—both tangible and intangible—and wherever situated (albeit for real estate, the usual rules of international law provide that the bankrupt’s trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) will require an order from the court where that property is situated to secure and enforce their rights).

For further reading, see Practice Note: What assets vest in the trustee in bankruptcy and what steps does the official receiver or trustee in bankruptcy need to

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

Fossil secures court approval for innovative UK restructuring plan (Re Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court sanctioned the restructuring plan of Fossil (UK) Global Services Ltd under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (the ‘Plan’), following near‑unanimous approval (99.99% by value) from a single class of noteholders, comprising both retail and wholesale creditors. Mr Justice Richards applied the four‑stage test set out by Lord Justice Snowden in Re AGPS Bondco Plc (‘Adler’): (i) whether the statutory requirements were satisfied, (ii) whether the class was fairly represented and voted bona fide in the interests of the class, (iii) whether the plan was fair and could reasonably have been approved (the so‑called ‘limited rationality test’), and (iv) whether any legal ‘blot’ or defect existed. The court placed particular emphasis on the quality and accessibility of information provided to retail creditors, noting that the involvement of an independent Retail Advocate helped ensure that they were properly informed and adequately represented throughout the process. Concerns regarding the participation rights of ‘New‑Money’ providers and the appropriateness of a single class were considered and rejected, with the judge satisfied that all creditors were better off under the Plan than under the relevant alternative. No defects were identified, and expert evidence supported the conclusion that the Plan would likely be recognised in the US, thereby ensuring its cross‑border effectiveness. Written by Brian Rostron, associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents