Addressing a novel issue in In re: International Oil Trading Company, LLC, 548 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied in part an involuntary debtor’s motion to compel production of communications between the judgment creditor who had filed the involuntary bankruptcy petition and the petitioner’s litigation funder. The Court found that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection were applicable to certain disclosures made to the litigation funder, a non-lawyer third-party.

The Facts

Stevensdrake Limited, a law firm, made a claim against a Liquidator for fees owing under a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) made between the two on 10 April 2008. The parties had worked together on various insolvency matters for many years.

The Facts

The latest decision in the Shlosberg saga that has turned the issue of privilege and use of documents on its head - this time considering the practical implications of how office holders can use information they have obtained by compulsion for the purposes of their investigations.

The Facts

This case is the first to really consider the practical impact of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Shlosberg v Avonwick [2016] EWCA Civ 1138, in which it was decided that legal professional privilege does not vest in a Trustee in Bankruptcy.

This article was first published by RECOVERY News and the full article can be found online here. 

About a year ago, I completed the most exhausting marathon of my life serving as the chief lawyer during the cross-border restructuring and chapter 11 of Waypoint Leasing, an Ireland-based helicopter leasing company. I joined Waypoint Leasing shortly after it started operations in the newly formed helicopter leasing industry. After the first few years of meteoric growth, the collapse in oil & gas prices hit the helicopter industry hard. We soon found ourselves dealing with bankrupt customers and eventually reached the brink of financial distress ourselves.

Some legal malpractice defendants are content to litigate claims asserted by debtors in the bankruptcy court. But many others, fearing that the debtor’s creditors may view them as a deep-pocketed resource to augment their own recoveries, would prefer to defend malpractice claims in what they view as a more neutral forum.

This month we review the court's view on open ended suspension of discharge from bankruptcy and the difficulty of 'substituting' a defendant in proceedings where the relevant limitation period has expired:

Suspension of discharge from bankruptcy should not be open ended

The High Court has held that only in the most serious cases of non-co-operation should a discharge from bankruptcy be suspended otherwise than on a specified period or condition basis.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED

37268

Joseph Palazzo v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada

(Que.)

Civil Procedure – Appeal – Prescription

The Applicant was an employee of the Respondent from 1968 to 2009. In 1980, the Applicant began selling life insurance and investment products of the Respondent until his retirement on May 1, 2009. During his employment as a sales representative, the Applicant was paid on a commission basis only.

36114  Miazga v. The Queen  (Criminal law – Manslaughter)