Background

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the administration of the Hastie Group Limited (Hastie Group)¹ illustrates a number of important points for administrators, secured parties and purchasers under the new regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). If you would like to discuss the implications of this case with any of our PPSA or insolvency litigation experts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The facts

Perfection of security interests in intellectual property can be a trap for the unwary.  In general, secured parties are often confused about where to file in order to perfect a security interest.  This is not surprising as the perfection regime differs depending on the type of intellectual property.  As a starting point, one should determine the general rule for the main classes of intellectual property:  trademarks, patents and copyrights.

In a perfect world, a debtor's bankruptcy would involve timely reporting, good faith filings, and full disclosures.  Unfortunately, some debtors either enter the process under a cloud of suspicion or make decisions during the process that suggest the estate has been compromised by fraudulent activity.  Whether the alleged fraud is a complex bust-out scheme or a simple unreported asset transfer, the debtor may face a serious investigation.  Depending on the extent of the allegations, the investigation could be referred as a criminal matter to federal prosecutors.  As the

In Salyersville Nat’l Bank v. Bailey (In re Bailey), 664 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.

At the end of 2011, the Federal Government introduced two draft Bills directed at clamping down on companies that engage in “phoenix” activity.

In our March 2012 Insurance Update we considered the potential widening of the scope for creditors to claim damages against a director personally for contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The Supreme Court of Queensland awarded Phoenix Constructions over $1.2 million in damages against Mr McCracken for contravention of s 182 of the Act. This decision, a first of its kind, was appealed by Mr McCracken.

If you are one of the lucky product manufacturers who weathered the recent economic downturn well and are looking to buy assets from those who did not survive…beware!

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently held that under Ohio law, the homestead exemption set forth in Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2329.66 applies to contiguous parcels of land only if those parcels are used for a single purpose as the debtor’s homestead.  In re Whitney, 459 B.R. 72 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2011).

Turnaround Management Association

The United States is about to enter year five of what has been aptly deemed “The Great Recession.” Bankruptcy advising is a cyclical business, and after a dearth of work in the heady financial years of the mid-2000s, expectations were high that in the downturn bankruptcy work would be abundant and steady.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear another bankruptcy case and this one could have a profound effect on a lender’s bidding rights when its collateral is up for sale.  RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166, cert. granted Dec.