In Navarac v Pty Ltd v Carrello [2016] WASC 327, the court-appointed receiver and manager of Esperance Cattle Company Pty Ltd had applied for orders from the court to conclude the receivership.

In order to prepare evidence and submissions to oppose the receiver's application, a director of the company applied to inspect certain documents, which she asserted were or might be held by the receiver.

In State of Victoria v Goulburn Administration Services (In Liquidation) & Ors [2016] VSC 654, the Victoria Supreme Court appointed two partners of Ernst & Young (EY) as special purpose liquidators (SPLs) of two companies, despite EY's involvement in carrying out contractual compliance audits before those companies went into liquidation.

In Re PrimeSpace Property Investment Limited (In Liquidation) [2016] NSWSC 1450 the Supreme Court of New South Wales was asked to consider whether it could make directions in respect of the investigation of the affairs of a corporate trustee (whose only assets were held on trust). The company, as trustee, had guaranteed a loan from a third party and also granted that third party first option on several apartments.

Deep Purple was, and still is, a rock music band. Its members included Mr Gillan, Mr Glover and Mr Paice. In 2005, band members entered into an agreement with HEC Enterprises Limited (HEC) and Deep Purple (Overseas) Limited (DPO). Under that agreement, the parties agreed to form a new company named Purpletuity, to which various copyrights and other assets were to be transferred. In 2015, Mr Gillan, Mr Glover and Mr Paice commenced proceedings against HEC and DPO to enforce that agreement.

In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.

A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. See, e.g., JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v.

On November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a highly-anticipated ruling in the chapter 11 reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp. ("EFH") invalidating one of the aspects of EFH's confirmed chapter 11 plan. In Del. Tr. Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC, the Third Circuit reversed lower court rulings disallowing the claims of EFH's noteholders for make-whole premiums allegedly due under their indentures.

Secured lenders have welcomed a ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in the chapter 11 cases of Aéropostale, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "Aéropostale"). In In re Aéropostale, Inc., 2016 BL 279439 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2016), Bankruptcy Judge Sean H.

On July 26, 2016, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Bankruptcy Code section 546(e) "safe harbor" applicable to constructive fraudulent transfers that are settlement payments made in connection with securities contracts does not protect "transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions (or the other entities named in section 546(e)), where the entity is neither the debtor nor the transferee but only the conduit."FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 2016 BL 243677.

On November 17, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a highly anticipated ruling in the chapter 11 reorganization of Energy Future Holdings Corp. ("EFH"), invalidating one of the aspects of EFH’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. InDel. Tr. Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 842 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2016), a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed lower court rulings disallowing the claims of EFH’s noteholders for hundreds of millions of dollars in make-whole premiums allegedly due under their indentures.