Most restructuring practitioners are aware, either vaguely or through punishing experience, of the power of PACA creditors. PACA (or the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq. for those who hate brevity) requires that buyers of produce hold such produce – and their proceeds – in trust for the benefit of produce sellers.
Editor’s Note: Here at The Bankruptcy Cave, we love insolvency stuff; we eat it for breakfast and dream about it at night. (We are not kidding.) Sometimes that includes credit-related litigation, and so we keep our pre-trial, trial, and appellate skills honed. To that end, here is a very helpful cheat sheet we prepared and which we bring with us to every deposition, just in case. (Your author Leah even got to enjoy a no-show deposition in Chicago last year; she created a perfect record using the below.)
Have you ever had to press garlic for a recipe? Or put together a Swedish bookshelf, purchased from a Swedish superstore? Yes, you have – and you may have succeeded, so long as you had a garlic press, or the bag of special Swedish tools respectively. But what if you don’t? Yikes.
In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).
The Court of Appeal1 has ruled that foreign judgments in insolvency proceedings may be enforced by the English courts at common law, and that the ordinary principles which may prevent the enforcement of foreign judgments do not apply to insolvency judgments where the action from which the foreign judgment arises is integral to the collective nature of the insolvency proceedings.
Facts
In a recent case1 the High Court held that the purported out of court appointment of administrators over a Guernsey registered limited partnership was void because the appointor used the incorrect form when giving notice of its intention to appoint.
Background