A bedrock principle underlying chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is that creditors, shareholders, and other stakeholders should be provided with adequate information to make an informed decision to either accept or reject a chapter 11 plan. For this reason, the Bankruptcy Code provides that any "solicitation" of votes for or against a plan must be preceded or accompanied by stakeholders' receipt of a "disclosure statement" approved by the bankruptcy court explaining the background of the case as well as the key provisions of the chapter 11 plan.

In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

In Short

The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court considered whether § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which limits a party's ability to undo an asset transfer made to a good-faith purchaser in a bankruptcy case, is jurisdictional.

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to assume, assume and assign, or reject executory contracts and unexpired leases is an important tool designed to promote a "fresh start" for debtors and to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. However, the Bankruptcy Code establishes strict requirements for the assumption or assignment of contracts and leases.

This week’s TGIF considers Hundy (liquidator), in the matter of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 1216, in which the Federal Court of Australia granted leave under rule 2.13(1) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (FCCR) for intervening parties to be h

On 27 July 2022, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Zoom Communications Private Limited v Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 619 of 2022 upheld the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) dated 17 May 2022 dismissing an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that the debt appeared suspicious and collusive in nature.

Background

On 05 July 2022, a Full Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited v. M/s Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 423 of 2021, held that a claim towards unpaid license fees for an immovable property would constitute an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and consequently constitute a debt in default for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

The Supreme Court of India (SC) in Orator Marketing Private Limited v Samtex Desinz Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2231 of 2021, judgment dated 26th July 2021 has held that an interest free term loan constitutes a financial debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The IBC provides that a financial debt is “a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money” furthered by an inclusive list of examples that may be considered as a financial debt.

Madoff

On April 19, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a landmark 2019 decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments to prevent the avoidance in bankruptcy of $8.3 billion in payments made to the shareholders of Tribune Co. as part of its 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO").