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.

Treasury has released draft regulations and a draft declaration for public consultation. The regulations and declaration support the stay on enforcement of ipso facto clauses against relevant entities. Ipso facto clauses allow parties to enforce a right, and terminate or amend a contract, when their contractual counterparties have entered into formal insolvency, regardless of the counterparties continued performance of their obligations under the contract.

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).

The Government has released a consultation paper as part of their commitment to ongoing reform of Australia’s corporate insolvency regime.  Phoenix activity refers to both legitimate business rescue activities and serial insolvency to avoid debts.

On 12 September 2017, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP, Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, announced the Government's plans to crack down on illegal phoenixing activity (ie, the stripping and transferring of assets from one company to another to avoid paying liabilities) and ensure that those involved face tougher penalties. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (Cth), which introduces a safe harbour for directors of insolvent companies and a stay on the operation of ‘ipso facto’ clauses during and after certain formal insolvency processes, received Royal Assent on 18 September 2017.

Director safe harbour

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has released a report (Report) regarding its inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 (Bill) which amends: