Achieving sales growth is a significant challenge for many Australian businesses. Even if new customers can be found, an inability to collect and hold onto payments can pose another obstacle to growth.
To survive and prosper businesses must plan, and implement, strategies for sustained profitability. It is not enough to simply achieve fantastic sales results and get the money in, businesses must also anticipate, and protect against, the risk that payments received from customers may be clawed back if a liquidator is later appointed to the customer.
Who Will Think of the Tenants: Split in Authority Regarding the Interplay Between Bankruptcy Code Sections 363(f) and 365(h)(1)(A)
The recent decision of the Federal Court in the matter of Divitkos, in the matter of ExDVD Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] FCA 696 confirms that where a receiver is required to make a payment under Section 433 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to a priority creditor (such as employee entitlements), the secured creditor (who appointed the receiver) may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of that priority creditor in the winding up of the company.
The Law
The recent Eleventh Circuit case of In re Brown, 746 F.3d 1236 (2014) held that 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2)'s replacement value standard applies even when a Chapter 7 or 13 debtor surrenders collateral under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(C). The Eleventh Circuit's decision in In re Brown has an important role in how personal property collateral will be valued in Chapter 7 and 13 cases in the Eleventh Circuit and thus its reasoning is important for creditors to understand.
In Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit became the first federal circuit court of appeals to hold that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy case violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”).[1] See No. 13-12389,__ F.3d __, 2014 WL 3361226 (11th Cir.
On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding that, while the Constitution does not permit a bankruptcy court to issue a final ruling in certain circumstances, it is permitted to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo by the district court.
Energy Future Holdings Corp. filed a prepackaged ("pre-pack") chapter 11 in April 2014 seeking a complete restructuring and quick-exit from bankruptcy, aiming to be in and out of bankruptcy in under 11 months. In May 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed the prepackaged disclosure statement and reorganization plan of Quiznos, and on May 23, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a $570 million loan in the Momentive Performance Materials prepack bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy Court holds that Section 521(a)(2) is more than a mere notice statute and that a chapter 7 debtor’s stated intent to surrender real property under that provision means that a debtor must allow the mortgagee to take possession through foreclosurewWithout interference or impediment
A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)
Before the Supreme Court this term is the question of whether a beneficiary individual retirement account (an “Inherited IRA”) is exempt from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(C) and (d)(12)2 of the Bankruptcy Code. The issue turns on 1) whether the funds in an Inherited IRA are “retirement funds,” and 2) whether an Inherited IRA is considered tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code (the “Tax Code”).