Legal proceedings need to be filed before the end of any relevant limitation period, otherwise they will be time-barred — often irreparably. There are various reasons why a person may delay commencing proceedings – for example, they may be waiting on litigation funding before prosecuting their claim or need more time to gather evidence in order to decide whether to proceed.
The decision in RPPS v Brookfield is the first recorded instance of s 151 of the PPSA being enforced (with a $30,000 penalty imposed for an improper registration). It serves as a caution to those making spurious registrations, but reasonably diligent and responsible parties should have no cause for alarm.
The decision in RPPS v Brookfield is the first recorded instance of s 151 of the PPSA being enforced (with a $30,000 penalty imposed for an improper registration). It serves as a caution to those making spurious registrations, but reasonably diligent and responsible parties should have no cause for alarm.
Overview of section 151 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009
Peter Bowden heads Gilbert + Tobin’s Restructuring + Insolvency group.
He specialises in front-end restructuring and insolvency and has significant experience advising hedge funds, banks, special situations groups, investment banks, insolvency practitioners, creditors and debtors on all elements of restructuring, insolvency, liability management, workouts, banking and distressed debt transactions in a range of industries including financial services, energy, mining, mining services, property, construction, agriculture and manufacturing.
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.