The High Court discharged Michael Hintz from bankruptcy on 7 December 2022, finding that he had failed to disclose a transfer agreement involving claims worth €100,000. The court said the bankruptcy had already been extended for more than nine months, which was sufficient sanction, and ordered no further extension.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey ruled on an application by Nicole-Annette Hintz, Mr Hintz’s former wife and a substantial creditor. She had sought a two-year extension, alleging that Mr Hintz had not cooperated with the Official Assignee and had concealed assets or income. The court rejected those broader allegations, finding no general failure to cooperate or concealment beyond the transfer agreement.
The agreement, executed in October 2020 between Mr Hintz and Ms Jentzsch, assigned claims against a German statutory health insurance dentists’ association, including future claims, until a stated debt and interest were settled. Mr Hintz accepted that he should have disclosed it to the Official Assignee. He said it was security for loans from Ms Jentzsch, which he said helped cover business costs, and that he misunderstood his disclosure obligations. The Official Assignee said the agreement was under investigation and that he lacked enough information to determine whether it had been made in good faith for valuable consideration. The judgment records that no payments had been made to Ms Jentzsch under the agreement.
The Official Assignee’s position was that Mr Hintz had answered queries and cooperated with inquiries, and that the only significant outstanding issue was the agreement. The judge gave particular weight to that assessment. He also said the discharge would not prevent the Official Assignee from continuing investigations, pursuing assets, or taking action concerning transactions where appropriate.
The court did not determine the substantive issues raised about Mr Hintz’s estate. It said those matters, and any action arising from them, remained for the Official Assignee. It also stated that Mr Hintz’s centre of main interests in Ireland had not been challenged in this application.
The court proposed that Ms Hintz’s costs be treated as costs of the bankruptcy, with the amount to be adjudicated if not agreed, and that there be no order for Mr Hintz’s costs. It allowed the parties to make written submissions on costs by 14 December 2022 before finalising those orders.