This entry is part of Nelson Mullins’s ongoing “Bankruptcy Basics” blog series that is intended to address foundational aspects of bankruptcy for new and non-bankruptcy practitioners and professionals. This entry will discuss the general structure of bankruptcy cases and the differences between “adversary proceedings” and “contested matters.”

This week’s TGIF concerns Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Admins Appt) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, in which the New South Wales Supreme Court determined that an insolvent company’s creditors could properly make a DOCA to maintain the right under security of payment legislation to recover amounts that would have been lost on entry into liquidation.

Key takeaways

You represent the unsecured creditors committee in a complex Chapter 11 case, where you have reason to believe that the debtor’s officers and directors have, and continue to, engage in self-dealing and are breaching their fiduciary duties by not advancing a plan in the best interest of creditors. So, the committee asks you to seek the appointment of an examiner to investigate.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider an appeal against the making of a pooling order in the Full Federal Court decision ofMcMillan Investment Holdings Pty Ltd v Morgan [2023] FCAFC 9 and examine the challenges liquidators face in convincing a court to grant such an order.

Key takeaways

In a unanimous decision handed down on Feb. 22, 2023, the Supreme Court reinforced one of the Bankruptcy Code’s important creditor protections. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), the Court confirmed, in an opinion authored by Justice Barrett, that the Bankruptcy Code bars the discharge by individual debtors of debts fraudulently obtained by the debtor’s agent or business partner.

The decisions in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 and Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 have been viewed as conflicting for liquidators. In this week’s TGIF, we examine these proceedings and why the decisions benefit both liquidators and creditors.

Key takeaways

There is seemingly, in the opinion of a great number of bankruptcy courts, a conflict between the United States Bankruptcy Code requirements that a debtor reorganize or liquidate “in good faith,” the federal Controlled Substances Act [21 USC § 841] (“CSA”) prohibiting, among other things, the distribution or sale of marijuana, and the laws of over half of the states in the country that authorize the sale of marijuana for medical and other purposes.

In Lawrence, Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] FCA 1478, liquidators of multiple companies were successful in obtaining the declarations and directions they sought regarding the distribution of statutory trust funds, and obtaining payment of their fees from trust assets.

In a previous blog post from June 2022, we discussed the Tenth Circuit’s post-Sigel decision in John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC v. U.S. Trustee (In re John Q. Hammons Fall 2006 LLC), 15 F.4th 1011 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2021), which held that the government must pay a refund to a Chapter 11 debtor based on what the debtor would have paid over the same time were the case in a Bankruptcy Administrator district.

When a company files for bankruptcy protection, Section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code creates an estate comprised of "all legal and equitable interest of the debtor in property." On July 15, 2022, Celsius Network LLC filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. At the time, it had approximately 600,000 accounts in its "Earn Program" which allowed account holders to earn interest on certain cryptocurrency deposits. These "Earn Accounts" held over $4 billion in cryptocurrency assets.