The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.1 The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles. GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi
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.
High Court says "Yes"
Need to know
In a win for creditors of insolvent companies, on 10 December 2015 the High Court determined that the obligation of a liquidator under section 254(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (1936 Act) to retain sufficient funds to pay tax on assets realised during the winding up only arises after a tax assessment has been made. If the funds are distributed prior to a tax assessment being made, then the obligation does not arise.
The "running account" defence to an unfair preference claim is a fragile flower. In a recent decision, the Queensland Court of Appeal has reminded solvent counterparties that suspension of a customer's trading account will probably break the "running account", exposing a solvent counterparty to greater unfair preference risk.
Need to know
A recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal demonstrates the importance for security trustees tocarefully consider and understand their obligations in an enforcement scenario.
Need to know
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
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.
The reform agenda for Australia's restructuring and insolvency regime has now received the views of the Productivity Commission, in the context of its wider review of Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure. A draft report published on 21 May 2015 sets out a number of recommendations that, while mostly not new to the reform agenda, will be relevant to restructuring and insolvency professionals in the not-too-distant future.
Need to know
In a first for the US and Australian markets, the Buccaneer Energy group of companies successfully had bankruptcy plans approved by the US Bankruptcy Court for both US and Australian incorporated debtor companies.