Courts Begin to Wrestle with the Impact of on a Debtor’s Ability to Recover Estate Property

Executive Summary

Bankruptcy courts often dismiss appeals of chapter 11 plans when granting the relief requested in the appeal would undermine the finality and reliability of the corresponding plans, a doctrine known as Equitable Mootness. Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review on the merits.¹

In January 2020, we analyzed a split among the Circuit Courts regarding whether a non-debtor holding a debtor’s property on the petition date has an affirmative obligation under section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code to return that property to the debtor immediately following the filing of the bankruptcy petition.

The High Court of Hong Kong refused to allow a Chapter 11 Trustee to disclose a Decision from Hong Kong winding up proceedings in the US bankruptcy court. The US proceedings were commenced to prevent a creditor from taking action following a breach of undertakings given to the Hong Kong court in circumstances where the company had no jurisdictional connection with the US.

When a court reaches a decision in a case, the law of the case doctrine generally provides that parties should not be able to relitigate the same issue in that case, and for the court to adhere to its prior decision.1 The doctrine does not, however, apply to every decision a court reaches. Two recent decisions by Judge Elizabeth Stong in the Brizinova chapter 7 cases in the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York explore when the doctrine may or may not apply in bankruptcy cases.

Following our previous article, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal following the High Court deciding that a moratorium in relation to restructuring proceedings in Azerbaijan could not be extended in breach of the Gibbs rule, allowing two significant creditors to proceed with their claims in the English Courts.

Despite the debtor's contention that his primary residence was in the United States, the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make a Bankruptcy Order following a petition presented by HMRC.

HMRC presented a bankruptcy petition against Robert Stayton on 30 May 2014 who owed approximately £653,640. The matter came before the court on a number of occasions before the final hearing, with judgment being handed down in November 2018.

A discharged Bankrupt had intentionally misled the Court as to his COMI being in England and Wales in order to obtain a Bankruptcy Order. Four years after the making of the Bankruptcy Order, the Court annulled it on the grounds that the Court did not have jurisdiction to make the Order in the first place.

Ashfords successfully acted for the Joint Trustees in Bankruptcy of Vincent Mascarenhas (deceased) in their application to discharge Freezing Orders, an Interim Charging Order and an Interim Third Party Debt Order obtained by creditors of the late Bankrupt in 2014. The Joint Trustees were not a party to the original proceedings but had standing to make the applications.