Over a decade after Lehman’s insolvency, the English High Court handed down a key judgement in Grant v FR Acquisitions Corporation (Europe) Ltd [1] on 11 October 2022. The judgement provides commentary on when certain Events of Default have occurred and are “continuing”.

Recent rulings out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and its lower bankruptcy courts have emphasized the circuit’s broad interpretation of section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, which protects bankruptcy sales from being overturned on appeal.

In her September 23 opinion in In re Royal Street Bistro, LLC, et al., No. 21-2285, District Judge Sarah S. Vance provided a comprehensive summary of the Fifth Circuit case law while mooting a debtor’s attempt to appeal a sale under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Introduction

The Full Federal Court, overturning Flick’s J decision at first instance ([2020] FCA 1759), found that the bankrupt’s main purpose in transferring their property was, in substance, not to prevent, hinder or delay this property becoming divisible amongst his creditors in breach of s 121(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

In brief

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in relation to the case of BTI 2014 LLC (Appellant) v. Sequana SA and others (Respondents) [2022] UKSC 25, concerning the duty of directors of a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 to consider (and act in accordance with) the interests of the company’s creditors.

Contents

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”) is a federal statute that provides a cause of action against a railroad employer that negligently injured a railroad employee. Filing a FELA lawsuit is the exclusive remedy for recovery from a railroad employer for an employee’s injury resulting from the railroad’s negligence. As a result, successfully defending against a FELA lawsuit can insulate railroad employers from liability, and employers should work with their defense counsel to identify all viable arguments to raise.

In what has been referred to as a “momentous decision for company law”, the Supreme Court recently considered whether, when a company is in the ‘insolvency zone’, its directors must have regard to the interests of its creditors in addition to, or instead of, its shareholders.

In October 2022, the English High Court delivered a long-awaited judgment¹ relating to whether or not certain Bankruptcy Events of Default can be cured under the ISDA 2002 and 1992 Master Agreements ("ISDA Master Agreements") - resolving an issue relating to the suspensory effect of conditions precedent to payments and performance under ISDA Master Agreements raised in the English Court of Appeal earlier in the Lehman administration.

In his final opinion, Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that dividends paid from proceeds of safe-harbored transactions under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code are not safe-harbored. While only approximately 15 pages of Judge Drain’s 109-page final opus are dedicated to consideration of the section 546(e) issue, the relevant analysis ends with a pressing question to Congress and an appeal to modify section 546(e) to “restrict to public transactions its currently overly broad free pass . . .

The Hastie Group Ltd. (liquidators appointed), and its related entities, fell into external administration on 28 May 2012.