The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently articulated a standard to determine what claims may be barred against a purchaser of assets "free and clear" of claims pursuant to section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code and highlighted procedural due process concerns with respect to enforcement.¹  The decision arose out of litigation regarding certain defects, including the well-known "ignition switch defect," affecting certain GM vehicles.  GM's successor (which acquired GM's assets in a section 363 sale in 2009) asserted that a "free and clear" provisi

Bell Group N. V (in liquidation) v Western Australia [2016] HCA 21

Alan Bond passed away last year, but the legal battles over the 1990 collapse of his Bell Group companies may yet continue. The High Court has declared state legislation, which was designed to end the long-running litigation by short-circuiting certain aspects of the Corporations Act 2001 (C’th), constitutionally invalid.

Background

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2

Liquidators brought action against company directors under s 588M(2) of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Liquidators sought to join third party insurer after insurer denied liability – Supreme Court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief on liquidators’ application – Meaning of justiciable controversy

Vizcaya Partners Limited v Picard and another [2016] UKPC 5

Privy Council advice that addresses what is required for foreign judgements

CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley & Ors [2016] HCA 2

The High Court of Australia has held unanimously¹ that a person who commences proceedings against an insolvent company or a bankrupt individual can join that defendant’s insurer to the proceedings and seek a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant.

Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd & Anor v Whitton & Ors [2015] FCA 1169

A bankruptcy trustee’s notice objecting to discharge on one of the special grounds specified in the Bankruptcy Act 1966 can be valid even if based on additional unstated reasons, so long as those reasons are directed to the achievement of a purpose of the law of bankruptcy.

BH Apartments v Sutherland Nominees [2015] VSC 381

The costs of ‘convening’. Whether the person requesting a meeting of creditors, pursuant to 5.6.15(1)(b) of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) be called is only liable for the costs of calling the meeting.

Sutherland Nominees Pty Ltd (Sutherland) was being administered pursuant to a deed of company arrangement under part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit") held that in rare instances a bankruptcy court may approve a "structured dismissal"- that is, a dismissal "that winds up the bankruptcy with certain conditions attached instead of simply dismissing the case and restoring the status quo ante" - that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme. See Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), Case No.