In legal parlance, the term “standing” embraces several discrete doctrines that govern the capacity of a party to sue and appear before a particular court. These concepts' fluidity should not obscure their importance: a party’s standing is a perpetual jurisdictional question, open to review throughout the lifespan of a particular case or matter and at every appellate level.

Types of Standing

Two Generally Applicable Forms

Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof GmbH ("GKK"), based in Essen, Germany, is the second largest department store chain in Europe with 131 stores and 18,000 employees. As some may recall, this is not the first time things have gone badly for the department store chain. Back in the 2000s, under CEO Thomas Middelhoff, who was sentenced to three years in prison in 2014 for 27 counts of embezzlement and tax evasion, the company's balance sheets were less than stellar.

Once asserted, may a party alter it? Once claimed, may a party contradict it?

A party’s ability to abandon a previously taken position and champion its converse in a later case or proceeding often depends on one of the law’s more esoteric prohibitions: that kaleidoscopic smorgasbord of precepts collectively known as “judicial estoppel.”

What Is “Judicial Estoppel,” Precisely?

WithinIn re LTL Management, LLC, No. 22-2003 (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its decision on the J&J “Texas –Two Step” bankruptcy saga. The Court’s decision complimented the parties and the lower court for their thorough analysis of the issues, but refocused practitioners on a basic bankruptcy principle:

[A bankruptcy filing] gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor…a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.

In a unanimous decision Bartenwerfer v Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the breath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s discharge provision – and exceptions thereto – and held that a debt resulting from fraud (even where the debtor was not directly involved) is, nevertheless, nondischargeable. While the Court’s principles provide a roadmap for analyzing potentially nondischargeable claims, it also expands what was originally thought to be a “narrow” exception to discharge.

One concept—“center of main interests,” or COMI for short, one of the more significant elements borrowed from international law and incorporated into Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code—sits at the heart of the latter, enacted in 2005 as the latest U.S. legislative attempt to handle cross-border insolvencies and international restructurings.

In spite of this notion’s importance, however, bankruptcy and appellate federal courts have long divided over a thresholder issue: as of which date should a foreign debtor’s COMI be determined?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bankruptcy filers cannot avoid debt incurred by another’s fraud.

The 9-0 ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, unanimously rejected Kate Bartenwerfer's bid to use U.S. bankruptcy code protection to eliminate debts on the grounds that she was unaware of fraudulent omissions made by her husband.

In the tenth edition of Going concerns, Stephenson Harwood’s restructuring and insolvency team covers the innovative attempt by a distressed company to shut out low-valued creditors in a scheme of arrangement, the utility of the Singapore recognition of foreign insolvencies regime to assist international liquidations, and the factors which the Singapore Courts will consider when deciding whether to stay a bankruptcy application. It has been a pleasure preparing these articles over the past five years and a big thank you to our readers!

Content

In the current times of financial stress, a borrower seeking to renegotiate or refinance existing financing arrangements may be asked by its lender to enhance or refresh its security package through the grant of a new floating charge.

The question of whether a floating charge can be avoided due to section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") can arise in such a context.

Void floating charges under section 245 of the IA 1986

At a time when, globally, insured businesses are under severe financial strain, the availability and extent of their insurance assets take on a new significance. It is significant not just for troubled businesses and their insurers, but also for third parties with potential or actual claims against those businesses.