In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.

Significance

Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, titled “Power of Court,” is often cited and used as a “catch-all” provision when requesting certain relief or when a bankruptcy court enters an order granting (or denying) certain relief not prescribed by a particular provision of the Bankruptcy Code. That section provides that a “court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title . . .

The Bankruptcy Protector

The Bankruptcy Protector

Most bankruptcy practitioners are familiar with the intentionally broad scope of discovery under Bankruptcy Rule 2004. However, there are limits to this discovery and the “pending proceeding” rule can be a useful tool to limit the scope of discovery in the appropriate circumstances.

Bankruptcy Rule 2004

The Bankruptcy Protector

A Means to Eliminate Uncertainty in the Reorganization Process

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the aftermath of 2017’s Hurricane Irma, wide swaths of Florida lost power. At The Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, 12 elderly patients succumbed to the heat when the skilled nursing facility’s air conditioning system failed following the electrical outage. In response, Florida’s legislature passed a law requiring all nursing homes and assisted living facilities to have backup generators capable of maintaining cool temperatures.

An emerging issue facing bankruptcy courts in subchapter V — small business reorganization cases[1] — is whether the 19 categories of debts listed in section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are subject to discharge in a cramdown confirmation of a corporate debtor’s plan of reorganization.

A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.

The Bankruptcy Protector

In the case of In re Ricky L. Moore (19-01228), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa taught an important lesson in the context of Chapter 12 bankruptcy cases[1]: do not rely on repeated assurances of payment from a friendly debtor in lieu of filing your bankruptcy proof of claim.

On 20 October 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) handed down a judgement in the matter of JP Markets v FSCA (Case no 460/2021) [2021] ZASCA 148 (20 October 2021) in terms of which the SCA set aside the decision of the High Court to place JP Markets (Pty) Ltd (“JP Markets”) into liquidation, finding that it was not just and equitable.