In this week’s TGIF, we consider the recent case of Re 52 The Esplanade Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] QSC 57 which provides guidance as to how the relation-back day for a company is to be determined in circumstances where there are multiple winding up applications.

Key takeaways

It’s a defense v. offense distinction:

• Defense—An objection and counterclaim designed to diminish or zero-out a proof of claim in bankruptcy is not subject to arbitration; but
• Offense—An objection or counterclaim designed to do anything more . . . can be compelled to arbitrate.

That’s the essence of a recent opinion in Johnson v. S.A.I.L. LLC (In re Johnson), Adv. No. 22 -172, Northern Illinois Bankruptcy Court (issued March 28, 2023; Doc. 18). What follows is a summary of that opinion.

Facts

Johnson & Johnson filed bankruptcy back in 2021 (In re LTL Management, Case No. 21-30589, New Jersey Bankruptcy Court).

That bankruptcy is now dismissed—on order of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

So, Johnson & Johnson refiles its bankruptcy (In re LTL Management, Case No. 23-12825, New Jersey Bankruptcy Court).

New and Improved

Here’s what’s new and improved about the second bankruptcy[fn. 1]:

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the Federal Court’s recent decision inFotios (Bankrupt) v Helios Corporation Pty Ltd (No 3) [2023] FCA 251, and earlier decisions in the same proceedings, clarifying the current Australian position as to priorities between creditors of successive trustees.

Key takeaways

“The trustee may avoid . . . any obligation . . . incurred by the debtor, that was madeor incurred“ with actual fraudulent intent or as constructive fraud.

–From § 548 of Bankruptcy Code (emphasis added).

Similar language is contained in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act—and in its predecessor acts—for 100+ years. [Fn. 1]

But actions to avoid debts as fraudulent transfers are rare—and largely unknown, it seems.

A Bad Experience

Boy Scouts of American achieved a confirmed plan of reorganization in its bankruptcy.

That confirmation is now affirmed on appeal by the U.S. District Court in Delaware[fn. 1]—and is heading to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.

The District Court’s affirming opinion is 155 pages long and highly detailed. This article tries to summarizes the opinion’s highlights—attempting to make the complex clear.

100% Payment Plan

The core of the opinion, around which most everything else revolves, is this:

Question: Can a creditor prevent its debtor from filing bankruptcy by pre-petition contract terms?

Answer: No . . . according to In re Roberson Cartridge Co., LLC, Case No. 22-20192 in the Northern Texas Bankruptcy Court (03/07/2023, opinion at Doc. 77).

Facts

Say what?!.

“Hypothetical jurisdiction” for a bankruptcy appeal?!

Who knew? I sure didn’t.

But it is, apparently, a thing . . . and it may even be real.

At U.S. Supreme Court

A newly filed Petition in the U.S. Supreme Court is Waleski v. Montgomery, McCraken, Walker & Rhodes, LLP, Case No. 22-914 (Petition filed 3/16/2023).

–The Question

The Question Presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Waleski v Montgomery is this:

In Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd)[2023] NSWSC 256, Black J of the New South Wales Supreme Court declined an application for an adjournment of one month brought by the voluntary administrator appointed to Brew Still Pty Ltd three days prior to the hearing of the winding up application.

What happens when a creditor class fails or refuses to vote on confirmation of a Subchapter V plan? Does that prevent a consensual confirmation?

We have a recent answer from In re Creason, Case No. 22-00988, Western Michigan Bankruptcy Court (opinion issued 2/23/2023).

Facts

The Subchapter V Debtor is a sole-proprietor dentist.