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”).
In December 2015, the Department of Housing and Public Works Queensland released a discussion paper seeking feedback on the issue of security of payment in the building and construction industry. The paper seeks feedback from the widest possible cross section of the building and construction industry on the following identified issues:
When a buyer’s characteristics can determine whether they are misled about the features of a property
Orchid Avenue Pty Ltd v Hingston & Anor [2015] QSC 42 per McMurdo J
This case highlights the importance of buyers making their own enquiries when purchasing properties for reasons that relate to features external to the property, such as ocean views.
Personal liability of members of management committees of incorporated associations for debts incurred by the association if it traded while insolvent has been an uncertain area of law in Queensland. Directors of companies that trade while insolvent have potentially been personally liable for debts incurred by the company, but there has always been a question mark over whether members of management committees of incorporated associations face the same personal liability.
On 7 November 2014, the Government released the draft Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2014, with key changes proposed to be put in place by 30 June 2015.
On 4 September 2014, the Government introduced the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 to the House of Representatives (Bill). The Bill is intended to amend the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth) so as to limit the entitlements payable by the Government to those employees made redundant due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employer.
The recent decision of Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCA 116 involves a significant development in the taxation collection obligations of liquidators involved in winding up a company.
In this Alert, Special Counsel Justin Byrne and Solicitor Rachael Nyst discuss the implications of the case in regard to the need to retain an amount from sale proceeds of a property in order to meet capital gains tax (CGT) liabilities.
Key points