In Arab v Pan, in the matter of Pan (No 3) [2024] FCA 563, the Federal Court of Australia addressed critical issues concerning the scope and compliance of summonses for production in bankruptcy, which will also impact corporate insolvency proceedings and such proceedings in other common law jurisdictions.

"Comity" is a principle of jurisprudence whereby, under appropriate circumstances, one country recognizes within its borders the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation. Many recent court rulings have examined the indispensable role of comity in the context of foreign bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings that have been "recognized" by U.S. courts during the two decades since the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. However, U.S.

Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code offers powerful protection for good-faith purchasers in bankruptcy sales because it limits appellate review of an approved sale, irrespective of the legal merits of the appeal. Specifically, it provides that the reversal or modification of an order approving the sale of assets in bankruptcy does not affect the validity of the sale to a good-faith purchaser unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending its appeal of the order. That is, section 363(m) renders an appeal "statutorily moot" absent a stay of the sale order.

On May 16th, the DOL released interim final rules (the “Final Rules”) and an amendment to Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2006-06 (the “Amendment to PTE”), effective July 16, 2024, amending the DOL’s Abandoned Plan Program (the “APP”) to allow Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustees to use the APP to terminate, wind up, and distribute assets from a bankrupt company’s retirement plan.

Sales pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code have become commonplace in bankruptcy cases as a mechanism to liquidate a debtor's assets and maximize value for creditors. Selling the debtor's assets to a third party provides a new go-forward business partner for the debtor's vendors and customers, and likely provides continuity of jobs for the debtor's former employees. Due to the benefits associated with a sale of the debtor's assets, creditors or parties-in-interest may be under the misconception that they need not pay attention to the sale process.

The Bankruptcy Code bars certain individuals or entities from filing for bankruptcy protection, generally because they do not reside or have a place of business or property in the United States, fail to satisfy certain debt thresholds, or are business entities, such as banks and insurance companies, subject to non-bankruptcy rules or regulations governing their rehabilitation or liquidation.

Determining a foreign debtor's "center of main interests" ("COMI") for purposes of recognizing a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code can be problematic in cases involving multiple debtors that are members of an enterprise group doing business in several different countries. The U.S.

A debtor's non-exempt assets (and even the debtor's entire business) are commonly sold during the course of a bankruptcy case by the trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") as a means of augmenting the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of stakeholders or to fund distributions under, or implement, a chapter 11, 12, or 13 plan.

You don’t see this very often: a dispute over the confidentiality of mediation communications.

But such a dispute recently happened in In re Barretts Minerals, Inc., Case No. 23-90794, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court. And the result is this: mediation confidentiality remains alive and well.

In re Barretts Minerals is a mass-tort asbestos case. And Debtor is pursuing confirmation of a bankruptcy plan under § 524(6). Mediation efforts are in progress.

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b).” In other words, a pure omission (i.e., where a speaker says nothing) cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b–5, even if such an omission could constitute a violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K (“Item 303”).