A federal court recently held that two investment funds are not jointly and severally liable for a bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan disagreeing with a 2007 opinion by the Appeals Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”). The Massachusetts U.S. District Court ruled there was no liability because the investment funds are not “trades or businesses” for purposes of ERISA’s joint and several liability rules.
The Federal Government has proposed a major strengthening of APRA’s crisis management powers and has released a consultation paper containing wide-ranging proposals for financial services reform that are now open to industry comment.
The recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202 gives liquidators comfort when disclaiming leases (as the liquidator of a landlord) pursuant to s 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.
The Bankruptcy Code provides a number of “safe harbors” for forward contracts and other derivatives. These provisions exempt derivatives from a number of Bankruptcy Code provisions, including portions of the automatic stay,1 restrictions on terminating executory contracts,2 and the method for calculating rejection damages.3 The safe harbor provisions also protect counterparties to certain types of contracts from the avoidance actions created under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, such as the preference and fraudulent transfer statutes.4
- Introduction
Recent cases interpreting Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) suggest that there are different standards for recognizing whether domestic entities and foreign entities have filed insolvency proceedings in the proper venue.
The Bankruptcy Abuse, Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was signed into law in the United States on April 20, 2005 and went into effect, for the most part, on October 17, 2005, created a new chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101, et seq., as amended) (the “Bankruptcy Code”) – Chapter 15. Chapter 15 replaces and modifies the earlier Bankruptcy Code sections that dealt with multi-national insolvency proceedings.
In light of the modern trend towards “pre-pack” arrangements as a legitimate restructuring solution, a recent judgment handed down in the Federal Court provides a timely reminder for insolvency practitioners that independence is paramount and liquidators can be removed upon the application of a creditor in circumstances where there is a perception of conflict.
On July 9, 2012, the Seventh Circuit decided in Sunbeam1 that the rejection of a trademark license by a bankrupt trademark licensor does not deprive the trademark licensee of its right to continue to use the trademark, and disagreed with the 1985 Fourth Circuit decision in Lubrizol2 that held to the contrary.3 In reaction to the Lubrizol decision, which held that the rejection of a license by a bankrupt licensor of intellectual property terminated the rights of the licensee, Congress enacted Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy
The Issue
The issue is whether the insolvency of a borrower under a non-recourse loan can trigger recourse liability for itself and its “bad boy,” non-recourse carve-out guarantors.