This week’s TGIF considers Thorn (liquidator), in the matter of South Townsville Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 143 in which a liquidator sought approval to enter agreements to pursue litigation and suppression orders to protect the disclosure of commercially sensitive details.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers Re C88 Project Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 126, a New South Wales Supreme Court case which provides guidance on the effect of omitting prescribed information, and including claims for disputed judgment interest, on the validity a statutory demand.

Key Takeaways

A bankruptcy court gave “unnecessary and unlikely incorrect” reasoning to support its “excessively broad proposition that sales free and clear under [Bankruptcy Code (“Code”)] Section 363 override, and essentially render nugatory, the critical lessee protections against a debtor-lessor under [Code] 365(h),” said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Feb. 16, 2022. In re Royal Bistro, LLC, 2022 WL 499938, *1-*2 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2022).

This week’s TGIF considers the recent High Court decision in Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, which provides guidance on the range of potential purposes for which an examination of company officers may be legitimately pursued by ‘eligible applicants’.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Re BBY Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 29, where the Court discussed the necessary elements of a Quistclose trust in the context of alleged unfair preferences.

Key Takeaways

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.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Wallace (Liquidator), in the matter of Avestra Asset Management Ltd (In Liq) v Dempsey [2021] FCA 1643 in which the Court granted liquidators leave to amend their pleading following a mistake in the naming of the plaintiff.

Key Takeaways

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.