Section 1141(d)(6)(A) and section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code together provide that debts owed by a corporation to a government entity are not dischargeable if such debts were obtained by false representations. Does this rule apply to claims by government entities seeking to enforce consumer fraud laws, where the government entities were not themselves the victims of the fraud?

In Dahlin v. Lyondell Chemical Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1956 (8th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that bankruptcy debtors were required by due process to provide more prominent notice of a case filing than they did, such that the notice might have been seen by unknown creditors with claims to assert.

Bankruptcy courts lack the power to impose serious punitive sanctions, a federal district judge ruled recently in PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Sensenich, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207801 (D. Vt. Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Geoffrey Crawford reversed a bankruptcy judge’s ruling that had imposed sanctions against a creditor based on Rule 3002.1(i) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the bankruptcy court’s inherent authority, and Bankruptcy Code section 105.

On November 9, responding to a request from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Solicitor General filed a brief at the Court recommending that the petition for writ of certiorari in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-11911, be granted. The petition, seeking review of a unanimous panel decision of the Eleventh Circuit, presents the question of “whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a ‘statement respecting the debtor's . . .

Here the court refused to grant an injunction restraining contractor Space from presenting a winding up petition against the employer COD.  The employer had failed to pay 3 applications for payment (nos.

In another case involving a winding-up petition, the petition was dismissed, after the court found there was a dispute as to whether the statutory payment scheme applied to the contract.  The contractual arrangements between the parties were not formally documented, but there was a basic agreement as to the scope and price of the works, which arose out of a subcontract between Ro-Bal and main contractor McAlpines to provide fabrication and erection of steelworks at two sites.  At one site the works were completed and paid for, but at the other there was a dispute regarding payment

Here the Court of Appeal granted an injunction which restrained a building contractor (Harbour View) from presenting a winding-up petition, overturning the high court's decision at first instance.  Harbour View had been engaged under two separate contracts based on a JCT Intermediate WCD (2011) to carry out works at two separate sites.  The employer (Wilson) failed to pay against two interim certificates (August 2013 and September 2013), leaving a sum of over GBP 1.6 million owing.