A recent unpublished decision, Strunck v. Figueroa, serves as a not-so-gentle reminder that sometimes an enforcement application can be “too little, too late,” and that it is imperative to be proactive to protect your rights under a divorce decree or agreement, especially when your adversary acts in bad faith. In Strunck, a 2011 divorce decree awarded the plaintiff $23,369, which was to be transferred from the defendant’s retirement account. Before the plaintiff could act to collect the $23,369, however, the defendant withdrew the money from the retirement account.

Because no recent opinions have been published by the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, I wanted to touch on a subject that is vital in nearly every preference or fraudulent transfer case: The Statute of Limitations For A Preference Claim

A. Statute of Limitations

On May 1, 2016, BIND Therapeutics, Inc., and affiliated companies (“Debtors” or “BIND”) voluntarily filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The filing comes days after the Cambridge, Mass., company received a notice of default from lender Hercules Technology III LP, which demanded immediate payment of the $14.5 million the lender says it is owed under the loan. The Company is backed by Koch Industry Inc.’s David Koch.

– But they weren’t as oppressive as my subject line may imply.

In a 13 page decision, released April 22, 2016, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding and sanctioned the Plaintiff – disallowing any further litigation against the defendants in the Bankruptcy Court. Judge Gross’ opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

Recently in the Abengoa SA bankruptcy proceeding (click here to review prior post), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware entered an order permitting Debtors to reject certain nonresidential real property leases (the “Rejection Order”).

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.

Freezing orders and the Foreign Judgments Act

Freezing orders (also known as Mareva orders or Mareva injunctions) are oft-used tools available to a plaintiff to preserve the assets of a defendant, where there is a danger of the defendant absconding or of the assets being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise diminished. Such dangers put in peril the ability of a plaintiff to recover any favourable judgment against that defendant.

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers.  In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.

General Position