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
The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides a regime by which a debtor can compromise with his/her creditors outside formal bankruptcy. The provisions are found in Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreements) and Part IX (Debt Agreements) of the Act.
DEBT AGREEMENTS
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 High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).
To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:
CLARITY OF INTENTION KEY TO CREATION OF EXPRESS TRUSTS: A WIN FOR RECEIVERS
The High Court has recently clarified what is required for the creation of an express trust (Korda & Ors v Australian Executor Trustees (SA) Ltd [2015] HCA 6 (Korda)).
To be effective, express trusts must satisfy the three certainties of intention, subject matter and object. That is:
SUMMARY
The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia have confirmed that a judgment on assessed costs is a final orders for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act), and therefore that a costs order can ground a bankruptcy notice for the purposes of the Act.
THE PERILS OF AMBIGUITY IN BANKRUPTCY NOTICES
The Bankruptcy Act ('the Act') is prescriptive as to the form and content of bankruptcy notices. Courts have often observed that close observance of the rules is necessary in light of the serious consequences faced by debtors upon bankruptcy and failure to do so may result in the notices being rendered invalid.
ABILITY TO SEEK AN EXTENSION OF TIME
Section 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) provides liquidators with a mechanism by which to obtain an extension of time within which proceedings against the recipients of voidable transactions may be commenced.
On October 31, 2014, Bankruptcy Judge Kaplan of the District of New Jersey addressed two issues critically important to intellectual property licensees and purchasers: (i) can a trademark licensee use section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code to keep licensed marks following a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a license agreement?; and (ii) can a “free and clear” sale of intellectual property eliminate any rights retained by a licensee? In re Crumbs Bake Shop, Inc., et al., 2014 WL 5508177 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2014).
Earlier this year, we reported on a decision limiting a secured creditor's right to credit bid purchased debt (capping the credit bid at the discounted price paid for the debt) to facilitate an auction in Fisker Automotive Holdings' chapter 11 case.1 In the weeks that followed, the debtor held a competitive (nineteen-round) auction and ultimately selected Wanxiang America Corporation, rather than the secured creditor, as the w