The English Court of Appeal in Re Debenhams Retail Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 600 recently considered the inter-relationship between the UK Government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and the ‘adoption’ of employment contacts by administrators under the Insolvency Act 1986.  The issue was whether by paying only the amounts which may be claimed under the Scheme to furloughed employees, the administrators have adopted the contracts.  Adoption means that the wages and other entitlements are payable as expenses of the administration ahead of other expenses.  

The Federal Court of Australia in Strawbridge (Administrator), in the matter of CBCH Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (No 2) [2020] FCA 472 has made orders to release the administrators of retailer The Colette Group (the Group) from personal liability for rent for a two-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The Federal Court of Australia in Frisken, in the matter of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98 has considered a dispute between a receiver and the director of the company as to whether the provisional liquidator, Mr Banerjee, should be appointed as the liquidator. 

The director sought the appointment of different liquidators on the basis that Mr Banerjee’s conduct as provisional liquidator was such that a reasonable person might apprehend that he might not be impartial as liquidator. 

No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.

Background

It is well established that by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy, a creditor submits itself to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and waives any right it would otherwise have to a jury trial with respect to any issue that “bears directly on the allowance of its claim.” Such a waiver normally applies in fraudulent transfer actions, since under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code the court must disallow a claim of any entity that received an avoidable transfer.

In a recent bench ruling, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, notwithstanding the fact that the filing contravened an express bankruptcy-filing blocking right, or “golden share,” held by certain preferred shareholders.

The Government has published the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (the Bill), an omnibus bill containing amendments (both temporary and permanent) to several acts. These amendments aim to both assist organisations in effectively managing the “immediate impacts of the response to COVID-19”, as well as mitigating some of the pandemic’s “unnecessary and potentially longer-term impacts on society”.

Two courts recently answered “yes,” finding that environmental claims brought against reorganized debtors by government entities were discharged under confirmed Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In In re Exide Techs., 613 B.R. 79 (D. Del. 2020), the District of Delaware held that pre-petition, non-compensatory air quality penalties imposed on a Chapter 11 debtor by a state regulator were subject to discharge in bankruptcy. And in In re Peabody Energy Corp.

I.Exide Techs.: the Bankruptcy Code’s Exceptions to Dischargeability

Yes, says the First Circuit. The First Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny a group of bondholders’ (the “Bondholders”) motion to have a trustee appointed for the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “System”) under section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to appoint a trustee to pursue avoidance actions in Chapter 9 cases.

Disagreeing with the much-critiqued SDNY opinion in Enron, the SDNY bankruptcy court disallowed claims brought by secondary transferees because the original claimants allegedly received millions of dollars in fraudulent transfers and preferences from the Debtors that have not been repaid. Deepening the district spilt on the nature of Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that the defense barring fraudulent transfer-tainted claims focuses on claims—not claimants—and cannot be “washed clean” by a subsequent transfer in the secondary market.