In May I wrote about a manufacturer of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) excused from the PFAS Multi-District Litigation in South Carolina because its PFAS-related liabilities might exceed its assets which is something for a Federal Bankruptcy Court to sort out.  At the time I worried that this was only one of many PFAS-related bankruptcies we would be seeing

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.

Hill Dickinson’s Hong Kong Commercial and Insolvency Disputes team acted for the successful respondent in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam (Respondent) -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (Appellant) Final Appeal No.13 of 2022 (on appeal from CACV No. 393 of 2021 [2023] HKCFA 9).

Hundreds and hundreds of claims for personal injury and property damage associated with PFAS contamination have been accumulating in the courtroom of a Federal Judge in South Carolina. A little over four years ago the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation determined that Federal claims that Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) containing PFAS used to fight fires had contaminated drinking water had enough in common that they should all be sent to Federal Judge Gergel in South Carolina for disposition.

Could a director of an insolvent company, who was held to be in breach of his directorial duties, be ordered to draw down his personal pension benefits to pay a judgment debt?

A bankruptcy court’s recent denial of a debtor’s petition for bankruptcy relief on narrow grounds casts a long shadow on the viability of bankruptcy relief for those employed in the cannabis industry. Though confining the court’s holding to this debtor’s case, the court concluded that because the debtor engaged, and intended to continue engaging, in activities that violate the Federal Controlled Substances Act, the debtor could not objectively have filed for bankruptcy or proposed a plan of reorganization in good faith, as required by Federal bankruptcy law.

The latest amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) took effect on December 1, 2022. This collection of modifications may be broadly divided into two categories: (i) amendments and a new rule promulgated to account for the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (the “SBRA”), and (ii) amendments clarifying or consolidating non-SBRA specific Bankruptcy Rules.

SBRA-Related Amendments

In a recent decision Chandler -v- Wright [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch) - Mr Justice Edwin Johnson in the High Court has found that myriad claims against the former directors of the retailer BHS fall to be struck out in the context of the high-value, complex litigation being brought by the joint liquidators of the BHS companies against the former directors of those companies.

Could bankruptcy protection be on the horizon for individuals and companies actively involved in the cannabis industry? Potentially yes, following President Biden’s October 6, 2022 request for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the administrative process to review marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”).

New fees are soon to be introduced by The Insolvency Service in respect of the insolvency deposit required to commence a creditor’s bankruptcy petition and winding-up petition which will make it harder for many businesses to collect their debts.