A recent decision in Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (In Liquidation) [2018] (TCC) has held that a company in liquidation cannot refer a dispute to adjudication when that dispute includes (whether in whole or in part) determination of any claim for further sums said to be due to the referring party from the responding party. 

Background

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling,[1] resolving a circuit split on the issue of whether a debtor’s statement about a single asset constitutes “a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).

Alerts and Updates

The Supreme Court’s opinion is significant because it will encourage creditors to rely on written, rather than oral, statements of debtors as to both their assets and overall financial status, which are better evidence in a nondischargeability case.

In a recent decision out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia, a court analyzed the effect of a setoff effectuated between two governmental units in the 90 days prior to the filing of a husband and wife’s bankruptcy case. In Hurt v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (In re Hurt), 579 B.R. 765 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2017), the court addressed competing motions for summary judgment filed by the debtors, on the one hand, and the U.S.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revived a chapter 13 debtor’s bankruptcy case holding that the bankruptcy court below made no specific finding that the debtor violated the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”) to support dismissal of the case.

In one of the first decisions issued this year by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the court addressed an issue of first impression. In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, n/k/a Old Cold LLC, No. 16-9016 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), the First Circuit held that the omission of trademarks from the definition of “intellectual property” in Section 101(35A) of the Bankruptcy Code, as incorporated by Section 365(n), leaves a trademark licensee with nothing more than a claim for damages upon the rejection of its license under Section 365(a).

A number of companies within the Carillion group have been placed in compulsory liquidation. The Official Receiver has been appointed as liquidator, with support from PwC. It has been confirmed that there is no prospect of any return to shareholders.

Given the size of Carillion, the UK's second-biggest construction company, with 43,000 employees and contracts on a wide range of projects, including a number of flagship infrastructure projects, this will inevitably have a significant impact on the UK construction sector as a whole. Official advice from PwC is:

The Court of Appeal raises the bar for insolvent claimants on security for costs

Two recently published decisions in the TCC considered the enforceability of an Adjudicator's decision and insolvency issues

Typically, the TCC has sought to enforce an Adjudicator's decision and the avenues for the losing party to challenge the award is narrow. The case law regarding what may and may not give rise to a successful challenge is well known and outside the scope of this note.

On June 8, 2017, Clifford J. White III, director of the U.S. Trustee Program(“UST Program”)[1], proclaimed before a congressional subcommittee that “debtors with assets or income derived from marijuana may not proceed through the bankruptcy system.”