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.

The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: