Cathro (liquidator), in the matter of Petsamo No 14 Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 399

Bioaction Pty Ltd v Ogborne, in the matter of Bioaction Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 436

Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lao, in the matter of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 458

Can the remedies available for an unreasonable director-related transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) be awarded in the case of a solvent company? This was the key legal question in the recent case of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lao, in the matter of Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 458. Ultimately, Justice Anastassiou answered this question in the affirmative.

An insolvency moratorium first introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic applies to nearly all Russian legal entities, individuals, and sole entrepreneurs, and bans the commencement of insolvency proceedings against Russian obligors.

Morton as liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufactures Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228

The Full Court of the Federal Court confirms that a statutory set-off under s 553C(1) of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) is not available against a liquidator’s claim for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act.

Background

It begins with an awkward mouthful. Outside a bankruptcy brief, is “unimpairment” even a word? (No, per Merriam-Webster.) Inside Chapter 11, it’s much more: a trend.

Want to refinance your bonds cheaply? Are you an otherwise sound and solvent business, forced into bankruptcy by a massive fire (PG&E), persistent low commodity pricing (Ultra Petroleum), or a pandemic (Hertz, whose airport rental business was shuttered in 2020 by COVID-19)?

Or would you just prefer to boost your stock value by lowering your coupon?

ASIC v King [2021] FCA 1610

Background

This is how Tribune ends: not with a bang, but a whimper. The 12-year litigation saga, rooted in the spectacular failure of the media and sports conglomerate’s 2007 leveraged buyout, reached an end in late February with a curt “cert. denied” from the US Supreme Court.

Morgan Lewis was one of the firms that captained the defense for Tribune’s former shareholders. This post notes some lessons that we learned—and relearned.

Lesson One: Section 546(e)’s ‘New’ Safe Harbor

The US Supreme Court tends to hear a couple of bankruptcy cases per term. Most of these cases deal with interpreting provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. However, every few years or so, the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue in bankruptcy. Some are agita-inducing (Northern Pipeline, Stern), some less so (Katz). The upcoming case is a little more nuanced, but could have major consequences.

Insight

Consider a lender that extends a term loan in the amount of $1 million to an entity debtor. The loan is guaranteed by the debtor’s owner. If both the debtor and the guarantor become subject to bankruptcy cases, it is settled that the lender has a claim of $1 million (ignoring interest and expenses) in each bankruptcy case. However, the lender cannot recover more than $1 million in total in the two cases combined. (Ivanhoe Building & Loan Ass'n of Newark, NJ v. Orr, 295 U.S. 243 (1935).)