Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.

Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code creates a framework through which a debtor can elect to either assume or reject an executory contract. Because the Bankruptcy Code does not define “executory,” courts utilize various tests to determine if a debtor can assume a contract—and thus be obligated to perform—or reject a contract—and thus the contract is deemed breached immediately prior to the bankruptcy filing date. The Countryman test is overwhelmingly the most commonly applied test to determine a contract’s executory nature.

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent Federal Court decision which offers guidance on when receivers may be released from claims arising out of their appointment and relieved from filing and serving formal accounts.

Key Takeaways

On August 15, 2021, Aluminum Shapes LLC, a Delair, New Jersey-based aluminum fabricator and processing company, filed a petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 21-16520). The company estimates $10 to $50 million in assets and liabilities.

In a recent judgment, the English Court of Appeal gives guidance on when a non-party costs order will be made against directors or shareholders of an insolvent company engaged in litigation. The judgment will be of interest to all involved in insolvency based litigation.

A snap shot of the courts’ jurisdiction to make costs orders against non-parties

The recent interim decision of the Federal of Australia in Michele Bottiglieri Armatore SPA, Michele Bottigliere Armatore S.P.A [2021] FCA 795 highlights the Australian courts' willingness to recognise cross-border insolvencies in the context of foreshadowed arrests of vessels entering Australian waters.

Introduction

As Singapore continues to advance its position as an international hub for restructuring and insolvency, it has implemented a number of changes to its legislative framework. One of the key developments has been the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency ("Model Law"), which has been given force of law in Singapore. The Model Law provides procedural mechanisms to facilitate the conduct of cross-border insolvencies.

On May 24, 2021, the U.S.

The Melbourne RIT team recently published an article on the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Badenoch (No 1) [2021] FCAFC 64. On 24 June 2021, the Full Court published a second judgment that fixed the start and end dates of the ‘single transaction’ between Gunns and Badenoch.

The Gunns liquidators have since made a special leave application to the High Court to appeal both of the Full Court’s decisions.

Key Note: