Imagine that while a bankruptcy case is pending, the debtor-in-possession or bankruptcy trustee files a state law claim against one of the estate's creditors. Presumably, if the debtor wins its state law claim, that recovery augments the bankruptcy estate and increases the amount available to pay the debtor's creditors.[1] The creditor, seeking to avoid litigating the action in the debtor's home state court, timely removes the lawsuit to federal court as permitted under 28 U.S.C.

Companies in distress often undertake a sales of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues when other lines of credit or source of funds have been exhausted. Such decisions are not taken lightly, especially as the disposal of assets is likely to detrimentally impact the underlying business or forecasts. Ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts will result in action being taken however it is often too late and to the detriment of the business.

Introduction

It is common for companies in distress to undertake a sales process of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues. Often this course of action is the last resort after all other lines of credit have been exhausted or creditors have stopped providing extended terms of trade. Companies should not take such decisions lightly, especially if the sale will impact the underlying business or forecasts. However, ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts result in action being taken (often too late and to the detriment of the company).

In an order issued today, Judge Dalton of the Middle District of Florida held that in a non-bankruptcy context, allegations that collection of a mortgage debt is barred by the statute of limitations do not form a “plausible basis” for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, or the Declaratory Judgment Act.

On November 21, 2016, in a case entitled In re Monson,1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision,2 which held that a debtor's conduct constituted a willful and malicious injury to a creditor within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), because the debtor injured the creditor's right to recover its loan, the injury was intended, and the debtor was conscious of his wrongdoing. Thus, the debt was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6).

Exceptions to the Dischargeability of Debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code

Two recent cases provide a timely reminder of the opportunities offered by creditor-funded litigation as a mechanism for bringing funds into what would otherwise be unfunded administrations. Both cases are examples of flexible and “light touch” exercises of judicial discretion which duly recognise the constraints and complex commercial considerations invariably encountered by liquidators in unfunded liquidations.

Approval of litigation funding agreements

Can liquidators disclose legal advice to creditors without waiving privilege? Common interest privilege may assist.

Common interest privilege

Legal professional privilege protects communications between a lawyer and client created for the dominant purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or for current or anticipated litigation.

If advice is disclosed to third parties, there may be a waiver of that privilege.

Insolvency practitioners can benefit from registration errors on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR).

Stay alert to any mistakes made by secured parties, as unregistered or invalidly registered interests could vest in the company.

Common errors include:

The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.

There continues to be doubt about the validity of certain Committees of Inspection (COI) established during a liquidation and the approvals given by them. Another decision of Pritchard J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia reinforces the potential risk to liquidators relying on COI approvals in the scenario where no separate meetings of creditors and contributories (i.e. shareholders) are held to approve the establishment of a COI.