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.

A recent case in the UK (Phones 4U Limited -v- EE Limited) serves as a warning to businesses of the unintended, and potentially costly, consequences of issuing inadequate termination notices to contractual counterparties.

Background

McDowell Purcell represented a creditor in a recent application to the High Court where Justice Costello granted an Order for Sale on foot of an equitable charge held by the applicant, over properties of the respondent who had been adjudicated a bankrupt.

Application

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.

The High Court delivered a stark reminder to personal insolvency practitioners (PIPs) that they serve an integral role in upholding the legitimacy of the bankruptcy process in a judgment delivered on 5 February 2018.

Background

The judgment arose out of an application by the Official Assignee (“OA”) to postpose the automatic discharge of a bankrupt. The OA submitted that the bankrupt had hidden assets from or failed to disclose assets which could have been realised for the benefit of the creditors of her estate.

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).

Introduction

On 29 June 2017 the High Court made an order for costs against the three former directors of Custom House Capital (the “Company”) having already disqualified them from acting as directors for periods in excess of ten years. The judgment was unusual because the order for costs was not just in relation to the legal costs but also for the very significant investigative costs of the Official Liquidator.

Background

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.”