Overview

A decision rendered during the sometimes peaceful interlude between Christmas and New Year’s is worth reading, and heeding. Hurston v. Anzo (In re Hurston), Adv. Proc. No. 15-2026 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Dec. 27, 2016) is a helpful reminder to anyone representing lenders or creditors which are hell-bent-for-leather to pursue a non-dischargeability claim against a debtor that submits a false written statement (e.g., a personal financial statement) to obtain credit.

Individual debtors with old tax debts relating to late-filed tax returns may be surprised to find that those tax debts may not be dischargeable under section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code due to the lateness of the tax filing. There is a current Circuit split regarding whether a late tax filing constitutes a “return” at all, which is critical to the dischargeability inquiry. The Ninth Circuit weighed in last week in In re Smith, 2016 WL 3749156 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016), further cementing the split.

In an appeal certified directly from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) to the Court of Appeals, the Third Circuit issued a ruling upholding Judge Kevin Gross’s decision that a chapter 11 debtor-employer may reject the continuing terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) under 11 U.S.C. § 1113, despite that the CBA expired post-petition.

The Bankruptcy Court’s Decision

Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has had to interpret ambiguous, imprecise, and otherwise puzzling language in the Bankruptcy Code, including the phrases “claim,” “interest in property,” “ordinary course of business,” “applicable nonbankruptcy law,” “allowed secured claim,” “willful and malicious injury,” “on account of,” “value, as of the effective date of the plan,” “projected disposable income,” “defalcation,” and “retirement funds.” The interpretive principles employed by the Court in interpreting the peculiarities of the Bankruptcy Code were in full view when the Court r

Despite having more than its fair share of failed banks, Florida has not been a hotbed of D&O litigation. On November 9th, the FDIC filed only its second lawsuit against former directors of a failed banking institution. The defendants here are former directors of Century Bank, FSB (Sarasota, FL), which was placed into receivership in mid-November 2009.  A copy of the FDIC’s complaint is available here.

Insolvency of the suspected fraudster may seem the end of the hunt, unless an egg-hunter can establish a proprietary interest in the assets (see our blog yesterday). But it can offer additional clues, or alternative pots of treasure, whether the fraudster is an individual or corporate entity.

On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC²) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.

Introduction

In the recent case of Re LDK Solar Co Ltd,⁽¹⁾Justice Lam considered the approach that the court should take in deciding whether to invoke its jurisdiction to approve an arrangement or compromise between a foreign company and its creditors or members.

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.