In June 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Taggart v. Lorenzen, through which it turned to general standards governing contempt outside of bankruptcy in holding a creditor may not be found in contempt for its failure to comply with a discharge injunction when a fair ground of doubt exists as to whether the creditor’s actions are wrongful. 139 S. Ct. 1795, 1799–1804 (2019).

Late in the evening on Feb. 23, 2021, the department store chain Belk Inc. and 17 affiliates filed prepackaged bankruptcy cases in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. In addition to filing first-day motions, Belk also filed its disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, which already had been solicited and accepted by the vast majority of those entitled to vote.

The COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States with force in March 2020. As the virus rapidly spread, the federal government responded with temporary changes to the Bankruptcy Code through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The CARES Act was one of the first laws enacted in an attempt to prevent what many expected would be a tsunami of bankruptcy petition filings in the wake of the zero-revenue environment created by statewide shutdowns during the first and second quarters of 2020.

In re Ultra Petroleum Corp. provides substantial support for the allowance of make-whole amounts pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(2) and that such are neither interest, unmatured interest nor the economic equivalent of unmatured interest. In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., No. 16-03272, 2020 WL 6276712, *3-*4 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2020). The case also clarifies that bankruptcy courts may not permit a solvent debtor to ignore its contractual obligations to unimpaired classes of unsecured creditors.

Case Background

As a result of the economic fallout of COVID-19, more bankruptcies are on the horizon, especially as government aid programs expire and involuntary or voluntary moratoriums on creditor action come to an end. [1] Creditors should be aware and prepared to avoid potential claims for alleged violation of the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code and related orders.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.