The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying a bank’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that when a debtor seeks to enforce a discharge injunction, a bankruptcy court may decline to compel arbitration because it implicates a bankruptcy court’s ability to enforce its own orders.

A copy of the opinion in Henry v. Educational Financial Service is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s judgment against a debtor who filed an adversary proceeding alleging that a creditor and its counsel violated the bankruptcy discharge by trying to collect a discharged debt, holding that the attorney could not be held in contempt because he lacked knowledge of the discharge, but the creditor could be held liable for the actions of its counsel under agency law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a bankruptcy court’s ruling that a lender failed to perfect its security interest because its UCC financing statement failed to provide sufficient indication of the secured collateral under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court’s denial of a debtor-borrower’s motion for sanctions, which alleged that her mortgage loan servicer violated her bankruptcy discharge by mailing a communication in a purported attempt to collect upon a discharged debt.

In determining the legal standard for holding a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt in violation of a bankruptcy discharge order, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted an “objectively reasonable” standard, and held that a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt if there is “no fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, which had applied a subjective standard for civil contempt.

Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.

Payment of priority creditors under section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is an activity conventionally performed by liquidators, albeit the section is silent as to the holder of the relevant payment obligation. The Federal Court of Australia has recently confirmed that distributions to priority (employee) creditors are not the exclusive purview of liquidators (where receivers are appointed contemporaneously); receivers may exercise the powers contained in section 561 to distribute certain funds to such priority creditors.

Forum bias, along with some technical issues, are still challenges in cross-border insolvencies in Australia

Just over ten years ago, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in the US, which turned out to be one of the largest cross-border insolvency cases in history.

Last year also marks:

It is inevitable that companies will face periods of financial distress during their corporate lives. During these times, it is incumbent on the directors and management to seek to maximise the company's chances of survival and preserve value for stakeholders. Certainly it has not been uncommon for directors to use the threat of voluntary administration as a part of their stakeholder management strategy during these times.

Creditors' rights to information and records