An undertaking offered by a bankrupt to the Secretary of State which imposes restrictions upon a bankrupt beyond his discharge from bankruptcy.

Same as a BRO, save that instead of a court order it comes into effect by way of an undertaking given by the Bankrupt and accepted by the Secretary of State.

A bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy one year after their bankruptcy commences, unless the court grants a suspension of that discharge by reason of a bankrupt's failure to co-operate with the official receiver (OR) or the trustee in bankruptcy (trustee)—section 279 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). On discharge, the disqualifications and restrictions which apply to an undischarged bankrupt will cease. For further reading on those disqualifications and restrictions, see Practice Note: The immediate effects of a bankruptcy order on the bankrupt. What is the bankruptcy restrictions regime and why was it introduced? In those cases of bankruptcy which are not simply the result of honest misfortune, but are due to the bankrupt's misconduct or recklessness, it is considered appropriate to ensure that the disqualifications and restrictions imposed in bankruptcy are maintained for a longer period than one year, to protect the public interest and serve as a deterrent. As a result, the Enterprise Act 2002 (EnA 2002) inserted a new section (IA 1986, s 281A) and Schedule (IA 1986, Sch 4A) into the

Bankruptcy searches at the Land Charges Department When a bankruptcy petition is presented by a creditor, the court shall as soon as reasonably practicable send to the Chief Land Registrar notice of the petition, together with a request that it may be registered in the register of pending actions. Further, once a bankruptcy order is made, the official receiver shall send notice of that fact to the Chief Land Registrar for registration in the register of writs and orders. These entries are registered regardless of whether the debtor or bankrupt (as the case may be) is known to own any real property. Both registers are maintained by the Land Charges Department of HM Land Registry (based at its office in Plymouth) and are open to public inspection. An Official Search of these registers (a bankruptcy search) against a specified name should indicate whether, against that specified name, a bankruptcy petition has been presented and, if appropriate, a bankruptcy order made. Since 6 April 2016, an individual who wishes to be adjudged bankrupt is no longer able to present

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court found in favour of the respondent, an Irish citizen who had been made bankrupt in England, that his rights under an Irish pension scheme, claimed by the applicant joint trustees in bankruptcy, were excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Following a reference to the Court of Justice, it was held that section 11 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (WRPA 1999) was incompatible with Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) unless it could be justified in the public interest. The Court of Justice judgment did not mean that the High Court was required to consider and rule on the question of justification. Justification had not been raised as an issue at the original preliminary issue hearing and the judge refused the applicants permission to raise a new issue on justification which would require a costly further hearing and involve seeking an explanation from the UK government for the policy reasons behind the legislation. Written by Nick Moser, partner at Taylor Wessing LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court dismissed an application to stay a bankruptcy order pending the bankrupt's appeal against the bankruptcy order. The court reaffirmed the presumption that such stays will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, in particular where there appear to be substantial grounds for an appeal and where an order would cause irreparable damage to the debtor. Neither was present here on the facts, further creditors' interests had to be protected. The court therefore declined to order a stay. Written by Sam Fenwick, partner, Suleika Horrocks, trainee solicitor, and Isabelle Burnett, solicitor apprentice at Wedlake Bell LLP.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Derek Cockle, solicitor at Osmond & Osmond, assesses the practical implications of the judgment in Hicken v Ellison concerning the Chancery Division’s decision to allow a hearing to take place in in the respondent’s absence in relation to the trustee in bankruptcy’s (trustee) application for the committal of the respondent bankrupt for breach of financial disclosure orders.

UK Finance has announced that 25 banks and building societies have committed to accepting the Economic Abuse Evidence Form (EAEF) to help victim-survivors of abuse. The EAEF is an information-sharing tool devised by Money Advice Plus (MAP), and is currently being rolled out nationally by MAP and Surviving Economic Abuse (SEA). It allows qualified money and debt advisors, trained by MAP and SEA, to tell an organisation that someone has experienced economic abuse, giving the lender the information needed to best support their customers.

Law360, London: Banks are risking public censure and fines from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) by failing to take a personalised approach to assessing risk posed by high-profile clients known as politically exposed persons (PEPs), according to lawyers.

The Single Resolution Board (SRB) has published its minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) dashboard for the third quarter of 2024, revealing that banks continue to meet their MREL targets.

Law360, London: The regulatory arm of the Bank of England has said that the lenders and insurers it supervises have made progress on managing financial risks linked to climate change, but expects more ahead of a planned update to its expectations this year.

Law360: A parliamentary committee urged the financial watchdogs on 8 May 2024 to review their approach to helping small and midsized businesses gain access to money, arguing that banks are making it 'needlessly tougher' to take out loans and unfairly closing accounts of legitimate companies.