On May 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit” or the “Court”) rendered a much anticipated opinion (the “Opinion”),¹ reversing the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) that the Bankruptcy Code does not permit non-consensual third-party releases of direct claims and affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the

On March 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) rendered an opinion (the “Opinion”)¹ affirming the confirmation order of Laurie S.

In Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Mallinckrodt PLC,¹ the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that a debtor that purchased intellectual property under a prepetition asset purchase agreement could continue to retain and use the property post-confirmation while discharging its obligations to pay any future royalties otherwise owed. The decision highlights the importance of structuring transactions up-front to minimize the consequences of future bankruptcies.

Background

In Matter of J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, L.L.C.,¹ the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the extremely deferential standard afforded to a debtor’s “business judgment” decision to reject an unexpired lease under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code and affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling allowing rejection of a ground lease notwithstanding allegations of a debtor-sublessor’s bad faith dealings in its negotiations with a sublessee.

Background

On July 29, 2022, Laurie S.

One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.

How does it happen?

It is common for E&P companies in chapter 11 to seek to reject burdensome midstream contracts under Bankruptcy Code § 365. Rejection has not been permitted by bankruptcy courts where such agreements create enforceable covenants running with the land (“CRWL”) because a CRWL is a real property interest of the midstream gatherer, not just a contract right. Accordingly, before a debtor can seek to reject midstream agreements, the bankruptcy court must first determine whether an enforceable CRWL exists.

As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.

When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.

A recent bench ruling in In re Pace Industries, LLC¹ by Judge Walrath for the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) has validated a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by certain debtors in the jointly administered cases of Pace Industries, LLC and certain of its affiliates, in spite of the fact that they were filed in contravention of an explicit bankruptcy-filing blocking right held by certain equity holders as set forth in the applicable corporate governance documents.