We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.

On May 8, cryptocurrency platform Bittrex filed for chapter 11 in Delaware. Bittrex’s first day filings emphasize that, unlike many other crypto filings over the past year, this case is not a “free fall” bankruptcy. In fact, a plan has already been filed, and the first day declaration said the debtors “took extensive action pre-petition to ensure full customer recovery, and plan to swiftly bring these chapter 11 cases to a responsible conclusion.”

Although in the Ninth Circuit the decision to revisit an order under FRCP 60 is “highly discretionary,” judges still must explicitly grapple with the relevant factors. That was the clear message sent by Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. of the Northern District of California when reviewing an appeal from the PG&E Corporation’s chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Persuading a bankruptcy judge to find “excusable neglect” after missing a filing deadline is usually a tough sell. You’d think it would be particularly hard when the party seeking relief was “belligerent and disrespectful to the Court and opposing counsel.”

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

Dispute Resolution analysis: Following a liability trial, an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 has been dismissed. None of the alleged instances of unfair prejudice directed against the Respondents was made out.

Pickering v Hughes and ors [2022] EWHC 3359 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

In a recent per curium opinion, the Fifth Circuit recommitted to its practice of dismissing claims against court-appointed fiduciaries when plaintiffs fail to obtain permission before bringing suit. The court rested its decision on the Barton doctrine, which other courts, including the Eleventh Circuit, have found inapplicable in similar circumstances.

Dispute Resolution analysis: When the owners and controllers of a company refused to identify the recipient of payments made out of the company during the course of arbitration proceedings, their defence to a claim under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 was struck out and judgment was entered against them.

Integral Petroleum SA v Pretrogat FZE and ors [2023] EWHC 44 (Comm)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Dispute Resolution analysis: A Court, cost-managing a claim under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has strongly criticised the level of anticipated costs reflected in cost budgets and have made an order reflecting the view formed.

Lemos and ors v Church Bay Trust Company Limited [2023] EWHC 157 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

This post is about a junkyard, hogs getting slaughtered, and a bankruptcy judge poised to sanction a creditor and her counsel. The message from the case to would-be claimants in other cases is simple: do not “overreach.”In re U Lock, Inc., Case No. 22-20823, 2023 WL 308210, at *1 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2023).