Delaware District Judge Leonard P. Stark has seemingly split with the Second Circuit and held that the safe harbor in Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not bar fraudulent transfer claims brought on behalf of creditors under state law, ratifying a June 2016 opinion from Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross.

In bankruptcy, one of the “powers” granted to a trustee is the ability to undo previously completed transactions in order to facilitate payments to creditors. However, the Bankruptcy Code prevents a trustee from unwinding certain types of transactions. The safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) protects financial institutions performing securities transactions from having to disgorge payments initially made by a now bankrupt company.

Making sense of the purchase money security interest (PMSI) priority provisions in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) can be challenging for financiers and insolvency practitioners tasked with assessing the merits of competing security interest claims.

Fourth Circuit Authorizes Partial Dirt for Debt Plan

The Bankruptcy Code requires that secured creditors realize the indubitable equivalent of their claims as a condition to confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization. In the case of Bate Land & Timber LLC, the Fourth Circuit addressed indubitable equivalence in the context of a partial dirt for debt plan where the debtor planned to covey several tracks of real property in partial satisfaction of its obligations to its secured creditor and pay the remaining balance owed in cash.

The recent judgment of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pluton Resources Ltd 1, concerns the interaction between a deed of company arrangement (‘DOCA’) under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘CA’) and the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (‘PPSA’).

The Bankruptcy Protector

Back in September, the Bankruptcy Protector announced that was introducing a new periodic series: theJevic Files. As promised, we have published intermittent updates identifying cases where Jevic priority skipping issues are raised and adjudicated.

In this post, we attempt to provide a succinct summary of all cases decided post-Jevic.

How Courts Are Applying Jevic

The new section 588GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides a “safe harbour” from insolvent trading claims for directors who, when suspecting a company may be or is insolvent, start developing a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company.

Creditors should take note that the deadline for filing a proof of claim has changed in bankruptcy cases filed under chapter 7, chapter 12 or chapter 13. As of December 1, 2017, a proof of claim ordinarily must be filed not later than 70 days after the bankruptcy case is filed if the case is voluntarily filed under one of these chapters. The change in deadlines is one of many recent changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

If, like me, you have ever scratched your head in confusion while preparing your taxes and thought to yourself – “I can’t believe the IRS takes such an absurd position on xyz tax exemption I want to use – who comes up with these crazy positions?” – then you might take some pleasure in a recent opinion from Judge Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware calling an argument made by the IRS “strained and a bit confusing.” You read that right.

When a dealership files for bankruptcy, a manufacturer will be faced with critical decisions regarding the proposed restructuring and the treatment of its dealer agreement. The bankruptcy code provides debtors with certain rights in order to maximize the recovery for creditors. Manufacturers must be cognizant of these rights in any dealer bankruptcy.