Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

This TGIF examines the determination of an application by liquidators of the Diploma Group of companies to be appointed as administrators of Diploma company and put a DOCA proposal to creditors.

Background

On 6 September 2017, Federal Court of Australia appointed liquidators to Diploma Group Limited (Diploma) and other companies within the Diploma Group (Group Companies). Prior to that appointment, the liquidators had been appointed as Diploma’s administrators and then provisional liquidators.

This week’s TGIF considers whether a flexible payment arrangement between a subsidiary and its holding company creditor meant the parent suffered no loss on the insolvency of the subsidiary.

What happened?

On 17 August 2017, the West Australian Court of Appeal published its reasons in Perrine v Carrello [2017] WASCA 151 drawing a close to the long-running dispute between the Perrines and the liquidator (Liquidator) of their failed pod-home building company (PodCo).

The NSW Supreme Court has given a Landlord leave to commence proceedings against a company for rent and make good costs arising after the date of the DOCA.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.

What happened?

On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

This week’s TGIF considers a NSW Court of Appeal decision which confirms that liquidators who bring a claim for preference payments within the limitation period may amend that claim to capture additional transactions otherwise subject to a statutory bar.

Background

Sydney Recycling Park (SRP) provided “tipping services” to Cardinal Group (Cardinal), who were in the business of “waste management”. Cardinal ran into some financial difficulties and on 1 February 2012, it was placed into liquidation.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of Hastie Group Ltd (in liq) v Moore [2016] NSWCA 305 in which the Court held that privilege attached to an expert report prepared for the purpose of obtaining litigation funding.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background