The High Court has ruled that liquidators of lessors can disclaim leases, thus terminating the leasehold interests of tenants.

However, yesterday's High Court decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc. v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51 leaves open another issue: do liquidators need to get Court approval before exercising this power, and, if so, how easy or difficult would it be to get that approval?

Key Points

The Canadian online dating service PlentyofFish.com had been attempting to purchase the 43 million member database of bankrupt dating site True Beginnings. Information in the database included dates of birth, usernames, passwords, credit card numbers, as well as dating profiles. The database purchase price was set at $700,000. The Texas Attorney General, however, filed an objection with the bankruptcy court on the grounds that the purchase would be a violation of True Beginnings’ privacy policy, since members had not agreed to have their information sold.

On October 30th, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") adopted new final rules imposing requirements on swap dealers and major swap participants with respect to the treatment of collateral posted by their counterparties to margin, guarantee, or secure uncleared swaps.

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.

I have blogged several times about the difficulties of preserving non-qualified plan benefits, particularly when the plan sponsor goes bankrupt. At the time of a bankruptcy, the company's non-qualified plan becomes nothing more than an unfunded promise to pay benefits and participants usually have to get in line with the company's other creditors. The recent decision in Tate v. General Motors LLC (56 EBC 1363, 6th Cir.

On June 10th, the FDIC published the final rule establishing the criteria for determining if a company is predominantly engaged in "activities that are financial in nature or incidental thereto" for purposes of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and therefore subject to the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority.

Six month extensions to convening periods should not be seen as a fait accompli, particularly if the administrator's application is opposed.

There is a commonly held belief that courts will readily grant an administrator's application for an extension to the convening period. This might have been true once, but it is fast turning into an urban myth, judging by two recent decisions in the Federal Court.

The recent decision of Modcol Pty Ltd v National Buildplan Group Pty Ltd ^[1] addressed whether leave should be granted to a subcontractor to allow it to commence proceedings against a contractor in administration in respect of the subcontractor's rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (the SOP Act).

The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will: