Part 1 of this two-part series explored potential legislative changes which could impact the Australian insolvency landscape in 2022 and beyond. Part 2 addresses the recent major developments in case law that have the potential to shape the insolvency landscape in Australia for many years to come.

Earlier this year, we highlighted the US Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.) to determine whether a 2017 statute that increased Chapter 11 quarterly fees was constitutional. The Supreme Court has spoken and deemed the increase unconstitutional under the Bankruptcy Clause, which requires that bankruptcy laws be uniform.

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.

Financial support for businesses impacted by COVID-19, legislative provisions (such as the statutory relaxation to insolvent trading liability) and general creditor leniency have resulted inhistorically low insolvency appointments during the last two years.

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?

The High Court has handed down the long-awaited decision of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, unanimously overturning the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. In so doing, the Court held that enforcement of rights under a personal guarantee was unconscionable.

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.

In Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, the High Court extended the purpose for which, and incidentally parties by whom, public examinations may be used.

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).)