Judge Craig Whitley’s recent transfer of the LTL Management case will bring a high-profile "Texas Two-Step" chapter 11 bankruptcy to New Jersey, and it may open a new chapter in how courts approach the novel transaction designed to isolate and address certain mass-tort liabilities.

In a decision that will likely impact bankruptcy proceedings around the country, the Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of certiorari of David Hargreaves, which challenged the equitable mootness doctrine.¹ As a result, the concept of equitable mootness remains anything but moot.

Shortly after the passage of a bill injecting an additional $310 billion into the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, the SBA has issued another supplemental Interim Final Rule (IFR) providing new guidance on several issues, including eligibility for hedge funds, private equity firms and portfolio companies, and has also answered questions about businesses in bankruptcy proceedings.

Whether you are a John Donne, Ernest Hemingway or Metallica fan, the above clause rings a bell. Last week the Court of Appeal for Western Australia joined those “Riding the Lighting” and provided its own musings on “For Whom the Bells Tolls” down under. Rather than affirming that the bell tolls for the infamous Spanish guerrilla fighters or a tortured metaphysical poet, the Australian court provided a new answer: The Bell [decision] tolls for “would be” secured lenders.

After four long years, Australia-based Centro Properties Group (“CNP”) has consummated a global restructuring that combines a debt-for-equity swap with an aggregation of its assets into a new real estate investment trust, Centro Retail Australia (“CRF”). Bracewell & Giuliani was first engaged by Centro’s private placement noteholders in December 2007. As the restructuring progressed Bracewell’s role expanded to becoming lead counsel for CNP’s entire international lending syndicate consisting of more than 90 distressed debt investors, institutional investors and commercial bank

Our clients must be sick to death about hearing us comment on the Australian Sons of Gwalia saga (which we have been doing for more than three years) but finally there is good news to report. The short version of the saga is thatSons of Gwalia was a decision by Australia's highest court that shareholder damages claims should be treated as pari passu unsecured claims in an Australian insolvency proceeding.

We have been sending Client Updates since 2007 concerning the decision of the Australian High (Supreme) Court in Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic. Specifically, the High Court held that the damages claims of shareholders of insolvent companies for fraud and misrepresentation should be treated pari passu with the claims of all other unsecured creditors, rather than being treated as subordinated to unsecured claims as is the case in the U.S.

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the BIA prevailed over a conflicting provision in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

Last year we reported (here) that Alberta’s Redwater Energy Corporation decision signaled good news for lenders and noteholders secured by Alberta O&G assets because the federal Canadian Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) prevailed over conflicting provisions in the provincial regulations promulgated by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”).

Prior to May 19, 2016, enforcing security against a financially-troubled O&G borrower in Alberta was a difficult proposition because the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) had promulgated regulations to the effect that it would not license acquirers of producing wells unless potential environmental liabilities for the costs of abandonment, remediation and reclamation for non-producing wells were covered, either by the acquirer assuming the liabilities or posting the necessary R&R bonding.