Kwasi Kwarteng, UK Business and Energy Secretary is reported to have said on 20 September that “My task is to ensure that any energy supplier failures cause the least amount of disruption to consumers”.

Wholesale day-ahead gas prices in the UK are reported to have jumped some 9% on 20 September alone. The rise is as a result of a number of factors including increased demand in Asia, lower supplies of gas from Russia and increase in demand as countries emerge from lockdown restrictions and economies start to pick up once more.

With the Act on the Temporary Suspension of the Insolvency Filing Obligation Due to Heavy Rainfall and Floods in July 2021 (Gesetz zur vorübergehenden Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht wegen Starkregenfällen und Hochwassern im Juli 2021), which is part of the Reconstruction Assistance Act 2021 (Aufbauhilfegesetzes 2021), the German Federal Parliament and the German Federal Council have decided to suspend the obligation to file for insolvency retroactively as of 10 July 2021.

Earlier this month – citing the “virtually unflagging obligation” of an Article III appellate court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction – the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decried the pervasive overreliance by district courts on the doctrine “equitable mootness” to duck appeals of confirmation orders.[1]

In its August 5th, 2021 VeroBlue Farms decision,[1] the Eighth Circuit lent its voice to a growing body of criticism of the equitable mootness doctrine contending that its use to bar challenges to confirmed reorganization plans should be circumscribed.

In a decision rendered on May 25, 2021, in Special Appeal No. 1.851.692, the Fourth Panel of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) decided that the holder of a credit who is voluntarily excluded from the reorganization plan has the prerogative of deciding whether to present a proof of claim so that its credit is subject to the judicial reorganization plan or to file for individual execution after the judicial reorganization proceeding ends.

Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.

A key goal of the Bankruptcy Code is to prevent corporate insiders from profiting from their employer’s misfortune. Section 503(c) of the Code makes clear: “there shall neither be allowed, nor paid... a transfer made to, or an obligation incurred for the benefit of, an insider of the debtor for the purpose of inducing such person to remain with the debtor's business” absent certain court-approved circumstances.

In a recent opinion from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the Dura Automotive Systems bankruptcy case,[1] Judge Karen Owens held that executory contracts cannot be impliedly assumed through course of conduct by the parties, under binding Third Circuit precedent, notwithstanding that a minority of courts outside of the Third Circuit have allowed it

Perhaps proving the maxim that people should be careful what they wish for, in a second significant ruling stemming from theJevic Holding Corp. bankruptcy case, on May 5, 2021, the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware found that Jevic’s Chapter 7 trustee, appointed following the conversion of the debtors’ cases from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, did not have standing to continue claims originally brought against the debtors’ prepetition lenders by the Chapter 11 creditors’ committee.

Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.