In a January 5, 2023 opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the panel held the Just Energy bankruptcy court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the debtor’s suit to recover Winter Storm Uri payments made to ERCOT. The Fifth Circuit found the underlying issue—i.e., the propriety of ERCOT and PUCT’s pricing—to be precisely the type of controversy that should be decided in the manner carefully prescribed by the Texas legislature, and not be second-guessed by the bankruptcy court.

Cryptocurrency in Celsius’ Earn Accounts belongs to the bankruptcy estate, and not to the depositors who placed it there, according to a January 4 memorandum opinion from Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.

In late December 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion affirming the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy court’s November 2021 decision that the debtor could discharge certain post-petition, post-confirmation royalty obligations for the sale of Acthar Gel.

The High Court has made an order appointing an inspector to investigate alleged fraud and unlawful activity by a company. It appears that this is the first time the order has been made on the application of a creditor seeking to recover its “investment”.

Part 13 of the Companies Act 2014¹ sets out the mechanism for the statutory investigation of the affairs of a company. Chapter 2 provides for the court appointment of an inspector to carry out a fact-finding investigation and report to the court. This is a discretionary relief.

Recent rulings out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and its lower bankruptcy courts have emphasized the circuit’s broad interpretation of section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects bankruptcy sales from being overturned on appeal.

In her September 23 opinion in In re Royal Street Bistro, LLC, et al., No. 21-2285, District Judge Sarah S. Vance provided a comprehensive summary of the Fifth Circuit case law while mooting a debtor’s attempt to appeal a sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In his final opinion, Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that dividends paid from proceeds of safe-harbored transactions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code are not safe-harbored. While only approximately 15 pages of Judge Drain’s 109-page final opus are dedicated to consideration of the section 546(e) issue, the relevant analysis ends with a pressing question to Congress and an appeal to modify section 546(e) to “restrict to public transactions its currently overly broad free pass . . .

A recent High Court decision has a useful discussion of the law on common interest privilege in Ireland.

In these proceedings,¹ the plaintiff trustee in bankruptcy sought to recover funds from the defendant. The trustee claimed that these funds formed part of a bankrupt’s personal property and should be recovered for the benefit of his creditors.

Yesterday, 17 October 2022, Revenue announced a significant update to the Debt Warehousing Scheme (DWS). Under the DWS, taxpayers with deferred liabilities had until the end of 2022 (and for certain qualifying business, 30 April 2023) to either settle their outstanding liabilities (at 0% interest) or to establish a Phased Payment Arrangement with Revenue (at 3% interest). In light of the current challenging economic environment, Revenue have now extended this deadline to 1 May 2024.

In both jurisdictions the general consensus was that where a company is insolvent, the fiduciary duty of its directors to act in the interest of the company (Irish law), or in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company in the interests of its members as a whole (English law), altered such that directors were required to treat creditors' interests in priority to shareholders' interests. Directors must consider the interests of creditors as a whole, and not just the interests of any individual creditor or class of creditors.

The director of an insolvent company appealed a restriction order made against him. The order prevented the appellant from acting as a company director or secretary for a 5-year period under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to satisfy the court that he acted responsibly in the conduct of the company’s affairs.