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.

Given the spate of bankruptcies filed over the last few years, including by large-scale tenants such as Borders, Linens 'n Things, and Circuit City, and the tenuous financial condition of big-box retailers such as Best Buy, it is important for both landlords and tenants to understand the benefits and limitations of bankruptcy protection as it relates to the status of a bankrupt tenant’s leasehold interest.

In somewhat related news, in two recent New York Supreme Court rulings, judges upheld the validity of “bad boy” guarantees that included as non-recourse exceptions or “bad boy” acts under the guarantee a voluntary bankruptcy filing by the borrower.

In recent years, several foreign companies have used the English law scheme of arrangement as a flexible restructuring method to compromise creditor claims.  The decision of the High Court in the latest of these cases, that of the German company Rodenstock GmbH, clarifies that an English court will accept jurisdiction where the only connection to England is that the company’s finance documents were governed by English law.

One of the many issues which arose from the collapse of Lehman Brothers was whether “flip provisions”, which reverse a swap counterparty’s priority in the order of payment on insolvency, were invalid on the basis that they contravened the anti-deprivation principle.  This is a long-established common law principle which seeks to prevent an insolvent party from arranging its affairs to frustrate the legitimate claims of creditors.

On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.

On September 13, 2011, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved a final rule requiring certain financial institutions to prepare a plan for their dismantling in the event of material financial distress or failure.

In a recent decision1 involving TerreStar Networks, Inc., and its affiliates (“TerreStar” or the “Debtors”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Debtors’ noteholders held a valid lien on the economic value of a license granted to TerreStar by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and that nothing in Article 9 of the New York Uniform Commercial Code (the “NYUCC”) or Section 552 of the Bankruptcy Code invalidated that lien.

Over the past few months there have been a number of insurance portfolio transfers and a winding up of a general insurer.  Various judges of the Federal Court have considered aspects of the Insurance Act (Cth) 1973.

Portfolio transfers

There have been two scheme transfers of insurance portfolios from Australian branches of overseas insurers to Australian subsidiaries.  While objections to the transfers were raised, the Federal Court confirmed the schemes.

Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90