The Supreme Court has issued two opinions on the subject of bankruptcy court authority and jurisdiction in recent years. The first opinion, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011) was a 5-4 split from 2011 that roiled the bankruptcy waters by raising many questions about the constitutionality of the jurisdiction and authority Congress has provided to bankruptcy courts. The more recent opinion— Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Bellingham, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.,___ U.S. _, No.

The recent depression in the maritime shipping industry served as the catalyst for many shipping companies to restructure. During the past few years, a number of foreign-based shipping companies have sought protection from creditors in U.S. Bankruptcy Courts—with varying degrees of success.

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed an issue left open in Stern v. Marshall.¹ Instead of bringing clarity to procedural confusion created by Stern, the Court’s opinion in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v.

A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)

On May 23, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection sent a letter to the court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings for ConnectEDU Inc. (“ConnectEDU”), an education technology company, warning that the proposed sale of the company’s assets raises privacy concerns.

Although Section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code explicitly allows payment of post-petition interest to holders of oversecured claims (i.e., where the value of the collateral exceeds the amount of the claim), the Bankruptcy Code does not describe how to calculate it. No bright line rules exist dictating how to determine oversecured status, the timing of the valuation, and the rate and type of interest to be paid to oversecured creditors. Computation of post-petition interest is a frequent topic of debate among the courts.

Both the Loan Syndications and Trading Association, Inc. (the “LSTA”) and the Loan Market Association (the “LMA”) publish the forms of documentation used by sophisticated financial entities involved in the trading of large corporate syndicated loans in the secondary trading market. The LSTA based in New York was founded in 1995. The LMA based in London was formed in 1996. Both the LSTA and LMA share the common aim of assisting in developing best practices and standard documentation to facilitate the growth and liquidity of efficient trading of syndicated corporate loans.

Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15

The High Court this week reinforced the significance and standing of a Liquidator's equitable lien for his or her costs and expenses incurred in realising assets of a company in liquidation, as first clearly espoused by Justice Dixon in the 1933 case of Universal Distributing. Gadens acted for the successful Liquidator/Appellant in the unanimous judgment of the five High Court Justices.

The Principle

Despite the absence of any provision in the Bankruptcy Code expressly authorizing the recharacterization of a debt claim to an equity interest, it generally is well-established that recharacterization is within the broad powers afforded a bankruptcy court under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and is necessary for the proper application of the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.1  In a recharacterization analysis, a

bankruptcy court ignores the labels of a transaction, examines the facts, and determines whether a

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently considered the question of how much protection is required for a secured creditor to be adequately protected. Banker’s Bank of Kansas, N.A. v. Bluejay Properties, LLC (In re Bluejay Properties, LLC), Bankr. No. 12-22680 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2014)(unpublished).