The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will:

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

The period for submissions on wide-ranging reforms to the NSW construction industry recommended by the Independent Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW is closing soon.

The final report of the independent inquiry into insolvency in the NSW construction industry was released on Tuesday for public comment.

The report is lengthy and addresses a wide variety of potential causes of contractor insolvency. It makes 44 recommendations, including reforms of the NSW construction industry to reduce both the incidence of contractor insolvency and its impact on other participants in the industry.

A particular focus of the inquiry will be the consequences of such insolvencies for sub-contractors.

In the wake of a recent spate of contractors becoming insolvent, the NSW Government has announced an inquiry into insolvency in the construction industry and is seeking submissions from interested parties. Submissions to the inquiry are due by 14 September 2012.

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.