Yes is the answer! On 12 July 2023, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services published its report regarding corporate insolvency in Australia.

Objective of the inquiry

The committee’s inquiry assessed how effective the current corporate insolvency regime is at providing benefits to, and protecting, stakeholders as well as the Australian economy. It looked at a number of aspects including:

On 2 March 2023 the Supreme Court of Victoria published its reasons in the matter of Atlas Gaming Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] VSC 91 (the Atlas case) in which Gadens acted on behalf of the Liquidator of four companies seeking a pooling order pursuant to section 579E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act). There have been very few judgments on section 579E which was introduced in 2007 by the Corporations Amendment (Insolvency) Act 2007 (Cth) Sch 1 items 133ff and operative from 31 December 2007.

On June 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion that held that Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018), as revised (June 14, 2018).

Last April, we updated you that the Supreme Court had granted review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our most recent post is here.

Last December, we updated you that the Supreme Court was considering whether to grant review of In re The Village at Lakeridge, LLC, 814 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016). Our original post is here. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court granted review of Village at Lakeridge, but only as to one question presented, the most boring one in our view.

On February 27, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit joined a minority approach followed by District of Columbia Circuit: failing to turn over property after demand is not a violation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. WD Equipment v. Cowen (In re Cowen), No. 15-1413, — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 745596 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017), opinion here.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to grant review of two bankruptcy cases. On October 3, 2016, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States. Because the Supreme Court’s justices normally give significant weight to the federal government’s recommendations regarding interpretations of federal statutes (here, the Bankruptcy Code), the Solicitor General’s forthcoming briefs could influence whether the Supreme Court grants cert. on the two notable bankruptcy cases.

Southwest Securities v. Segner

Either from our prior posts here and here, or from the great posts from Stone and Baxter’s Plan Propon

You may recall the holding and analysis of ASARCO [1]/ from Jay’s previous post, here.

The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed whether estate professionals could recover fees expended in defending fee applications. Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. _____ (2015). A divided court ruled that the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1) allowed compensation only for “actual, necessary services rendered[,]” and that to allow fees for defending fee applications would be contrary to the statute and the “American Rule” that each litigant pay her own attorneys’ fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.