Property issues in bankruptcy cases

This subtopic considers property–related issues that can arise during the administration of an individual's bankruptcy estate.

The bankruptcy estate

Subject to some exceptions, the bankruptcy estate comprises all property belonging to or vested in the bankrupt at the date of the bankruptcy order. This also includes beneficial interests in property held under trusts.

In accordance with section 306 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the bankruptcy estate immediately and automatically vests in the trustee in bankruptcy (trustee) on their appointment without any conveyance, assignment or transfer. The trustee will either be the official receiver or—more usually where there are more substantial assets to realise—an insolvency practitioner.

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 take?

Properties in bankruptcy

In many bankruptcies, the bankrupt's home will form the main—and sometimes only—realisable asset in the bankruptcy estate. Where that property falls within the scope of IA 1986, s 283A, the trustee has to take certain prescribed steps before the third anniversary of the date

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