Some 25 years after Harmer promised a faster, more efficient and commercial approach for dealing with failed and failing companies, Australia's highest court has this morning confirmed that creditors can contractually bind a company and all stakeholders to a moratorium extension via a properly formed holding DOCA (Mighty River International Limited v Hughes [2018] HCA 38; Clayton Utz acted for the successful Deed Administrators of Mesa Minerals Limited).
The two limbs of the defence to an unfair preference claim under section 588FG(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Corporations Act have separate work to do.
In a useful decision for liquidators and the insolvency industry, the WA Court of Appeal has clarified the nature of the tests creditors need to satisfy to maintain a defence to a liquidator's unfair preference claim in section 588FG(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the Corporations Act (White & Templeton v ACN 153 152 731 Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor [2018] WASCA 119).
On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215, which dealt with the dischargeability of debt in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” under section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Background Facts
In a recent opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the “Court”) ruled that penalties assessed by the state of Michigan against two debtors, stemming from fraud associated with the wrongful receipt of Michigan unemployment benefits, are non-dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 523(a)(2).1
Background Facts
The Ag industry continues to face financial challenges. The potential of a bankruptcy notice remains ever present. Ignore a bankruptcy notice at your own peril.
Pay close attention to any mail involving a bankruptcy case – because every bankruptcy case in which the Debtor owes you or your institution money, or has property you or your institution may have an interest in, has the potential to affect your interests. Consider the following hypotheticals:
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan recently issued an opinion in a case that involved mutual claims between the debtor and a creditor, and lifted the automatic stay to allow a creditor to exercise “setoff” rights provided by state law to recover its debt.1
The Background
Filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy as a consumer is a voluntary decision. Once a Chapter 13 case has been filed, it is also up to the debtors to dismiss the case if they so choose.
What happens if, after a Chapter 13 case has been filed and a plan confirmed, a debtor decides to dismiss the case but the Chapter 13 trustee is holding funds that would have otherwise been distributed to creditors?
Numerous changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Rules”) take effect on December 1, 2017. The changes significantly impact the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases, and Chapter 13 cases in particular.
Some of the most significant changes to affect creditors, explained in more detail below, include:
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan recently issued an opinion in a bankruptcy case involving a husband and wife who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.
Two proposed bills are working their way through the Michigan Legislature that would significantly impact state law pertaining to commercial real estate receiverships.
Specifically, House Bills 4470 and 4471 were approved by the Michigan House of Representatives in early November 2017 and have been sent to the State Senate for consideration.