Discharge from bankruptcy and suspension of automatic discharge

At the heart of the bankruptcy legislation is the concept that a bankrupt surrender their estate for the benefit of creditors in return for protection from the claims of those creditors, with essentially a 'line in the sand' being drawn as at the date the bankruptcy order is made.

When a bankruptcy order is made, there are several restrictions that affect the bankrupt and their property. For further reading, see Practice Notes:

  1. The immediate effects of a bankruptcy order on the bankrupt

  2. What assets vest in the trustee in bankruptcy and what steps does the official receiver or trustee in bankruptcy need to take?

  3. The 'three-year rule' in bankruptcy under section 283A of the Insolvency Act 1986

The period of bankruptcy commences the day the bankruptcy order is made and continues until the bankrupt is discharged. The bankruptcy will also come to an end if the order is annulled under section 282 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

The effect of discharge is set out in IA 1986, s 281—discharge releases the

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