“The discharge of claims in bankruptcy applies with no less force to claims that are meritorious, sympathetic, or diligently pursued. Though the result may chafe one’s innate sense of fairness, not all unfairness represents a violation of due process.”

On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.

In response to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia in 2020, the federal government injected an unprecedented level of stimulus into the Australian economy and introduced temporary law reforms aimed at protecting against an anticipated "tidal wave" of insolvencies. These temporary law reforms included a moratorium on civil liability for insolvent trading for directors and increased thresholds and time frames for responding to statutory demands.

In a decision arising out of Tribune’s 2008 bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision affirming confirmation of the media conglomerate’s chapter 11 plan over objections raised by senior noteholders who contended that the plan violated their rights under the Bankruptcy Code by not according them the full benefit of their prepetition subordination agreements with other creditors.

In Short

The Situation: When determining and quantifying unfair preference claims in Australia, does the Corporations Act permit liquidators to value transactions forming part of a single "continuous business relationship" (such as a running account) from the point of peak indebtedness, even if doing so disregards earlier transactions that might act to reduce the value of the claim against the creditor?

In Short

The Situation: The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has required governments around the world to provide temporary relief to companies and directors experiencing distress as a consequence of the pandemic.

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to shake global markets, it is likely that more companies will need to restructure to address liquidity constraints, to right-size their balance sheets, or to implement operational restructurings. In addition to a potential surge in restructurings, the spread of COVID-19 is already having pronounced impacts on companies planning or pursuing restructurings, and further market turmoil may cause even broader changes to the restructuring marketplace.

Potential Increase in Restructuring Activity

In Short

The Situation: Should liquidators be personally liable for the costs of unsuccessful appeals, without an entitlement to reimbursement by the company or its creditors in relation to those costs?

The Conclusion: The general rule providing a liquidator immunity from personal costs orders and entitling a liquidator to be indemnified from the assets of the company for their own costs, and for the costs of the other party, does not apply when a liquidator initiates an unsuccessful appeal.

In Short

The Situation: A liquidator can reject a "double proof" for what is, in substance, the same debt as another accepted proof of debt.

The Question: When are liquidators justified in rejecting what could arguably be a double proof?

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”