Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.

The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.

On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.

Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.

We are excited to share the inaugural edition of R+I In Brief, where we explore the past year of developments in the Australian restructuring and insolvency industry and provide our thoughts on the year ahead.

The 2023 edition of R+I In Brief includes a collection of articles and case notes we have prepared as well as some further commentary on issues we consider pertinent to the restructuring and insolvency industry.

It is broken up into three parts:

In this Part of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief, we delve into significant judicial developments relating to insolvency law, including:

Part 1 of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief explores restructuring and insolvency developments in Australia in FY22/23.

Overview

Despite the challenges flowing from increasing global inflation and supply chain disruptions, the Australian economy has to date remained resilient and a technical recession has been avoided in 2023. However, after many years of historically low interest rates, the Reserve Bank of Australia raised interest rates rapidly from April 2022 (12 rate rises and counting) as inflation became uncontrollable.

This Part of the 2023 edition of R+I In Brief provides key industry and sector insights relating to the restructuring space over the past year. These hot topics include:

The finality of asset sales and other transactions in bankruptcy is an indispensable feature of U.S. bankruptcy law designed to maximize the value of a bankruptcy estate as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of all stakeholders. To promote such finality, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits reversal or modification on appeal of an order authorizing a sale or lease to a "good-faith" purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending appeal. What constitutes "good faith" has sometimes been disputed by the courts.