Is a court order necessary for security interests granted after the appointment of external administrators? Perhaps not.

These are unprecedented times for businesses trying to manage the challenging impact of inflation, labour shortages, supply interruptions, elections, fires, floods, wars and a pandemic. It is more important than ever to manage working capital, mitigate risk and monetise assets.

(This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal, Vol. 33 – March 2021)

A liquidator can be exposed personally in litigation. In this article we discuss the risks to a liquidator associated with litigation by examining some recent cases where liquidators have been ordered to pay costs personally. To mitigate these risks, we provide guidance on litigation strategy for liquidators.

This article was originally published in the Australian Restructuring, Insolvency & Turnaround Association Journal (Volume 32 #01 2020)

The first of March marked the second anniversary of the changes to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) permitting an external administrator to assign rights to sue. The Australian Government proposed the reform in the hope that the ‘sale of rights of action may enable the value in such rights to be realised’[1].

The United Kingdom and Australia have recently implemented legislative changes to permit external administrators to assign or sell causes of action available to them.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.