For the second time in four weeks, a U.S. district court questioned the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue nonconsensual third-party releases as part of a plan of reorganization.

For the second time in four weeks, a U.S. District Court has questioned the authority of bankruptcy courts to issue non-consensual third-party releases as part of a plan of reorganization. On Jan. 13, 2022, the Eastern District of Virginia vacated the confirmation order in the Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc. (f/k/a Ascena Retail Group, Inc.) chapter 11 cases on the grounds that the plan contained impermissible non-consensual third-party releases. Patterson, et al. v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc., Civ. No. 3:21cv167 (DJN) (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2022).

Appeals from bankruptcy court orders continue to play a key role in bankruptcy practice. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules arguably cover all the relevant issues in a straightforward manner. Recent cases, however, show that neither Congress nor the Rules Committees could ever address the myriad issues raised by imaginative lawyers. The appellate courts continue to wrestle with standing, jurisdiction, mootness, excusable neglect, and finality, among other things.

A “federal [fraudulent transfer claim under Bankruptcy Code § 548] is independent of [a] state-court [foreclosure] judgment,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Dec. 27, 2021. In reLowry, 2021 WL 6112972, *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021). Reversing the lower courts’ approval of a Michigan tax foreclosure sale, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that “the amount paid on foreclosure bore no relation at all to the value of the property, thus precluding the … argument that the sale was for ‘a reasonably equivalent value’ under the rule of BFP v.

Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.

In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.

Key Takeaways

On Dec. 16, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the Bankruptcy Court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases — namely for the benefit of the Sackler family who owns Purdue. In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case No. 7:21-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021).

On Nov. 11, 2021, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Craig Whitley in Charlotte, North Carolina ordered to move LTL Management LLC’s chapter 11 bankruptcy case to New Jersey after finding that LTL Management had used the “Texas Two-Step” to manufacture jurisdiction in North Carolina improperly. LTL Management is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson and a defendant in thousands of talc-related tort claim lawsuits. In re LTL Mgmt. LLC, No. 21-30589, 2021 BL 439798 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2021).

Key Points

The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294

The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 casts significant doubt on liquidators’ capacity to rely upon section 568 of the Corporations Act to disclaim environmental liabilities, despite the absence of any involvement of the liquidator in the creation of those liabilities.

In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.

A Chapter 11 corporate debtor’s monetary penalty obligation owed to the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), resulting from “fraud on consumers,” survived the debtor’s reorganization plan discharge, even when the FCC “was not a victim of the fraud,” held the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 2, 2021. In re Fusion Connect Inc., 2021 WL 3932346, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2021).