On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:
Dealing a major blow to the trustee’s efforts to recover fraudulent transfers on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of the company run by Bernard Madoff, Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held in SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC1 that the Bankruptcy Code cannot be used to recover fraudulent transfers of funds that occur entirely outside the United States.
The High Court has recently affirmed the existence and scope of a liquidator’s equitable lien in Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15.
A liquidator is entitled to an equitable lien for the costs, charges and expenses (including the liquidator’s remuneration) incurred by the liquidator in realising assets brought into the estate, which lien takes priority over a creditor’s security: Re Universal Distributing Co Ltd (in liquidation) [1933] HCA 2.
A recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia highlights the importance of properly registering security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).
Voluntary administrators frequently obtain Court orders permitting notices to be issued to creditors electronically. Such orders are made under section 447A of the Corporations Act (the Act) on grounds of efficiency, cost and necessity. See Mothercare Australia Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2013] NSWSC 263 and Creative Memories Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1294.