Courts reviewing a bankruptcy court’s decision to approve a chapter 11 reorganization plan over the objections of an interested party must consider not only the merits, but also (if implementation of the plan was not stayed) potential injury to the reliance interests of other parties relying on the plan. These issues are confronted in Drivetrain, LLC v. Kozel (In re Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas), 2020 WL 2121449 (10th Cir.

APPEAL ALLOWED

9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidus Capital Corp., 2020 SCC 10

Bankruptcy and insolvency   Discretionary authority of supervising judge in proceedings under Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act    Appellate review of decisions of supervising judge

SJK Wholesale Limited (In Liquidation) v Companies Act 2014 [2020] IEHC 196

Introduction

In a recent decision, the Irish High Court refused to grant a liquidator access to a Google email account.

The court ruled that Irish insolvency law did not permit a court to order Google Ireland to grant the liquidator access to the email account in circumstances where the email account was created in the name of an individual rather than the company itself.

Many things have changed during the Covid-19 lockdown. Additional time with family and time to catch up with things I wouldn’t otherwise have had time to do are two of the main benefits I have enjoyed. Being a rather boring lawyer, one guilty pleasure I have indulged in is watching transmissions of Supreme Court hearings.

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merlin Diamonds Limited (No 3)[2020] FCA 411, in which, consequent on finding a number of contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court ordered the winding up of that company.

Background

The Eleventh Circuit has joined the Second in holding that consent to be called using an autodialer and/or prerecorded messages, given as part of a contract, cannot be unilaterally withdrawn. Medley v. DISH Network, LLC, 2020 WL 2092594 (11th Cir. May 1, 2020).

EIGHTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY MONITOR

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Re Debenhams Retail Limited (In Administration) [2020] EWCA Civ. 600

Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, qualifying businesses may seek up to $10 million under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) for funding payroll and business expenses. The US Small Business Administration (SBA) guarantees the loans, and the full principal amount of the loans and any accrued interest may qualify for loan forgiveness. For many businesses, PPP loans have served as a lifeline during the COVID-19 pandemic.