Insolvency officeholders seeking to realise claims or other rights of action will take comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Edengate [2022] EWCA Civ 626.

The Court held that failure by a liquidator to give a defendant the opportunity to buy or settle a claim against it before selling the claim to a third party is not necessarily perverse. However, it may often be sensible or good practice to do so.

In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.

Deepening a split of circuits, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Bankruptcy Code waived the sovereign immunity of Native American Tribes. The May 6, 2022 opinion by Judge Sandra L.

In the recent case of In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 340, the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims, where the key asset is an entitlement to tax refunds for research and development.

This matter involved the liquidators of Spitfire Corporation seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that:

In Re Edengate Homes (Butley Hall) Limited (in liquidation) [2022] EWCACiv 626, the Court of Appeal considered a challenge to an assignment of claims by a liquidator.

As 21st century disputes take on an increasingly cross-border character, so, too have parties resorted to a powerful tool provided to non-U.S. litigants under American law -- petitions to take discovery pursuant to Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1782.

While many have focused on the question of whether private international arbitrations can support Section 1782 petitions, case law has evolved on another question: Can Section 1782 be used by litigants seeking to identify property to satisfy judgments rendered in non-U.S. proceedings?

Supreme Court 22 January 2022, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:80 - www.rechtspraak.nl

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with the following question: can the bankruptcy trustee recover a payment made from a bank account with a debit balance in the name of the bankrupt company after the bankruptcy date, as undue payment due to a breach of the fixation principle or the equality of creditors principle?

Ordinarily, in civil proceedings a successful party in litigation will be awarded their costs.

This is known as the legal rule or principle that costs follow the event. But a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2021 suggests that this rule may not necessarily apply in examinership proceedings.

Since the Veolia case in the mid 2000s the Irish courts have taken the view that the costs follow the event rule need not necessarily be followed in every instance and that they have a certain discretion to depart from this default rule.

Hoge Raad 22 januari 2022, ECLI:NL:HR:2022:80 (www.rechtspraak.nl).

Introductie

In het onderhavige arrest buigt de Hoge Raad zich over de volgende vraag: kan de curator een girale betaling, gedaan na datum faillissement vanaf een op naam van de failliet staande bankrekening met een debetsaldo, als onverschuldigd terugvorderen wegens strijdigheid met het fixatiebeginsel of de paritas creditorum?

Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) sold baby powder for decades.

Today, J&J is facing tens of thousands of lawsuits alleging that its baby powder causes cancer. And the number of new cancer claimants is increasing daily—with many thousands yet to be identified over decades to come.

So, J&J turns to bankruptcy to address this litigation threat, to protect future claimants, and to protect the going concern value of its global operations. [Fn. 1]