Section 363 of Title 11 of the United States Code (“Bankruptcy Code”) authorizes trustees (and Chapter 11 debtors-in-possession) to use, sell, or lease property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate outside of the ordinary course of business upon bankruptcy court approval. Some of the key benefits for purchasers are the ability to purchase assets free and clear of liens under Section 363(f) and obtain protections from adverse consequences of any appeal under Section 363(m).

“You have been served” – the famous phrase uttered by process servers everywhere, may never be heard by a bankruptcy defendant.

Why?

The High Court has recently expressed concern that distressed borrowers are being duped into paying money to the anonymous promoters of schemes, which purport to protect them from enforcement by lenders but are actually ‘utterly misguided and spurious’.

There are a number of schemes being promoted at the moment that supposedly protect borrowers in arrears from enforcement by their lender.

What is “redemption” in bankruptcy?

At the end of my October blog post, Dear Debtor, You Said I was Your First Priority, a VIP!, I suggested that you might want to join a “support group” called the “Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors” (fondly referred to as the OCC or GUCCs), if you felt angry or depressed about your unsecured claim status. Admittedly, I may have led you astray.

In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate. One of those questions is “Am I entitled to priority payment?” This is also important to answer in a Chapter 7 case.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

The results are in!

As I mentioned in my May 25th blog post, Curtis James Jackson III, better known as rapper 50 Cent (“Jackson”) was scheduled for his bankruptcy confirmation hearing yesterday (July 6th).