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, which 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

Commercial Court gives guidance on pleading and proving claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Invest Bank PSC v El-Husseini)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Commercial Court dismissed a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that the first defendant (Mr El-Husseini) had transferred valuable assets to eight transferee defendants, being his family members, companies under their control and a discretionary trust, with the purpose of putting the assets beyond reach of the claimant (Invest Bank) as a potential creditor. The court held that the allegations advanced at trial were of serious wrongdoing amounting to dishonest behaviour or disreputable conduct which accordingly required a clear pleading of a sufficiently cogent case. Invest Bank had not properly pleaded in its particulars of claim the primary facts on which it sought to rely at trial in raising its case based on inference against the defendants. A positive case as to the financial difficulties of one of the key companies was only raised in a reply to the defence of one of the eight defendants. In any event, without expert accountancy evidence as to the state of finances of the key companies the court could not draw any inferences as to Mr El-Husseini’s purpose. The court also declined to draw adverse inferences from Mr El-Husseini’s failure to participate in the proceedings after a failed jurisdiction challenge, and he gave guidance on the law and practice in that regard. Written by Tiffany Scott KC, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

Popular documents