Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 went into effect December 1, 2011. It was implemented to address a perceived problem in “cure and maintain” Chapter 13 cases (cases in which the debtor cures any pre-petition arrearage and maintains monthly post-petition payments on long-term loans) – that mortgage creditors were not providing the debtor with notice of post-petition payment changes and fees assessed post-petition, causing debtors to often exit a successful Chapter 13 with a delinquent loan.

Many creditors have been warned of the need to halt collection efforts once they are put on notice that a debtor has filed for bankruptcy. However, the “why” behind this warning, mainly the automatic stay, is often misunderstood or disregarded. Since violations of the automatic stay can have serious ramifications, it is crucial that creditors know what the automatic stay is, what it protects, and how to get relief from the stay so that the creditor can proceed with collection efforts.

What Is the Automatic Stay? What Does It Protect?

The Second Circuit’s August 2021 decision in In re Gravel, 6 F. 4th 503, has already received considerable attention and generated much debate over the last few months.

On 4 November 2021, the High Court of Australia heard the arguments put forward by Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association and Willis Lease Finance Corporation, together Wells Fargo, and the administrators (the Administrators) of the Virgin Australia Airlines group, which entered into administration on 20 April 2020. The dispute primarily concerned who should pay for the redelivery of four aircraft engines capable of being used on B737s (the Engines) to the lease redelivery location in Florida.

Background

A few changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure became effective on December 1, 2021. The most noteworthy change relates to Bankruptcy Rule 9036, which addresses notice and service by electronic transmission.

A district court judge recently reversed and remanded a well-known bankruptcy decision discharging a significant student loan debt.

Whether—and in what circumstances—a debtor should pay creditors a make-whole premium continues to be litigated in bankruptcy courts. Last week, as reported by Bloomberg, Judge Dorsey (Delaware) ruled that the debtor – Mallinckrodt Plc – did not need to pay a make whole premium to first lien lenders in order to reinstate such obligations under the debtor’s chapter 11 plan.

The English High Court has rejected a challenge to the CVA proposed by Caffè Nero in a decision that provides guidance on the use of the electronic voting procedure for votes on CVAs, the effectiveness of modifications made to a CVA during the process and the duties of the directors and nominees when considering last minute offers for a business in a restructuring scenario. Mr Justice Green rejected all grounds of challenge brought by Mr Ronald Young, a landlord to Nero Holdings Limited ("NHL").

In what could prove to be a landmark judgment, a Dubai court ruled earlier this month that the directors of a company in bankruptcy should be personally liable for the company’s debts, to the sum of almost AED 450,000,000 (around US$ 122,000,000).

Article 144 of Federal Law No.9 of 2016 (the “Bankruptcy Law”) allows a court to order directors to pay a bankrupt company’s debts where: