Bankruptcy Tourism and Medicon Limited - a reverse Delaware effect - is it any more or less desirable?
- Skjevesland v. Generan Trading Company Ltd  BPIR 024.
- Shierson v. Vlieland-Boddy  BPIR 1170 - featuring an insolvent insolvency practitioner.
- Re Staubitz-Schreiber  ECR 1-701  BPIR 510.
- Stojevic v. Official Receiver  BPIR 141.
- Official Receiver v. Eichler  BPIR 1636
"(1) A bankruptcy petition shall not be presented to the court under section 264(1)(a) or (b) unless the debtor—
(a) is domiciled in England and Wales,
(b) is personally present in England and Wales on the day on which the petition is presented, or
(c) at any time in the period of 3 years ending with that day—
(i) has been ordinarily resident, or has had a place of residence, in England and Wales, or
(ii) has carried on business in England and Wales."
The facts established before Evans-Lombe, J in the Chancery Division focused on three properties; one in the Isle of Man, one in France and one in Mauritius. It was the question of whether or not the debtor was domiciled in the latter that fell for the consideration of the learned judge. The question of the debtor’s centre of main interest (COMI) was not discussed as Mauritius obviously falls outside the European Union and the effect of the Directive. Perhaps Denmark are well out of it! As soon as the decision of Mr Registrar Simmonds in Medicon Limited is reported I will revisit this area on the blog.
Picture Credit: http://lh3.ggpht.com/_DXvGho9jU-I/SHiZ5JCeUtI/AAAAAAAAARU/oAg01j5BSz8/DSCN0050.JPG