Key Points:

A section 439A report must contain all material information which is known or reasonably ascertainable by administrators.

Foreclosure defense and bankruptcy often go hand in hand, but sometimes it seems like the left hand doesn’t talk to the right. This has proven especially common with bankruptcy plans that propose to “surrender” real property encumbered by a mortgage. The term “surrender” is not defined in the bankruptcy code. As a result, lenders and borrowers often interpret the term differently. For example, most lenders interpret surrender to mean not defending a foreclosure.

Key Points:

A DOCA can extinguish claims under a guarantee, even where those claims arise following the DOCA's termination.

If the underlying debt has already been extinguished by a DOCA, can a secured creditor still enforce the charge? A recent case explored the role of section 444D(2) of the Corporations Act in this situation, with implications for parties seeking to rely on guarantees from companies that have been through a DOCA (Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 95).

Key Points:

Section 562A of the Corporations Act does not apply where liquidator realises a sum of money by assigning the proceeds of the reinsurance claim to a third party.

Liquidators of insurance companies face a major quandary when assessing reinsurance recoveries.

A new Court decision may undercut the legislative policy that reinsurance proceeds should be quarantined from the normal rules for paying out creditors of insolvent companies.

Key Points:

These three cases illustrate that strict compliance with legislative requirements continues to be imperative when serving statutory demands.

Despite what appears to be a fairly straightforward legislative regime, creditors' statutory demands appear to generate an entirely disproportionate volume of litigation in the courts. The drastic consequences of failing to comply with a creditor's statutory demand warrant very strict compliance by creditors with the technical requirements of the regime.

Orla McCoy explains the connections between retention of title clauses, insolvency, and the Personal Property Securities Act.

Click here to view video.

On June 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, in which all nine Justices joined in an opinion that reversed an Eleventh Circuit ruling that chapter 7 debtors may “strip off” wholly unsecured junior liens. The Caulkett opinion largely relies upon the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992), in which the Court held that a chapter 7 debtor may not “strip down” liens where the value of the property partially secures the underlying claim.

Currently before the Supreme Court is Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C.,2 in which the Court will determine whether bankruptcy judges have discretion to award compensation for the defense of a fee application under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a). The decision in Baker Botts will likely resolve a circuit split and make clear whether a defense of a fee application is necessary to the administration of the case and, therefore, compensable.

Key Points:

Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.

Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.

Insolvent subcontractor’s claim

Following the Eleventh Circuit’s decision last year in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the filing of a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case pending in the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisdiction violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (“FDCPA”). But as the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama recently made clear in Gurganus v. Recovery Management Systems Corp. (In re Gurganus), No. 7:14-ap-70054-BGC, 2015 WL 65089 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. Jan.