On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held that creditors must move for an in personam remedy in the original foreclosure judgment or forfeit their right to collect deficiency funds. In Elliott v. Dyck O’Neal, the bank foreclosed upon a borrower’s residence, and sought judgment against the borrowers for the full amount of the outstanding balance in the complaint. The motion for default judgment, and accompanying order, however, only sought an order in rem for the outstanding debt—omitting any mention of an in personam remedy.

Trade creditors often face the issue of whether they are required to continue providing goods or services on credit to a customer that has filed chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the Bankruptcy Code fails to specifically address the rights and obligations of a trade creditor facing this dilemma, resulting in a tug-of-war created by the debtor’s need for continued goods and services and the creditor’s need for assurance of payment.

Your tenant files for bankruptcy-what’s your move? Debtors who are lessees under real property leases have certain rights regarding their lease under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Essentially, the debtor has two options: 1) reject the lease or 2) assume the lease, provided that the debtor can cure any defaults existing under the lease. Additionally, the debtor may have the right to assume and assign the lease to a third party.

Based on the current state of judicial consideration of s 548 (1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), liquidators cannot be certain that a committee of inspection (COI) established at a general meeting of creditors alone is valid with the consequence that liquidators may be concerned about their reliance on past and future COI approvals to draw remuneration and take other steps in the winding up.

Re: the Bell Group Ltd (In Liquidation)

Following up on our coverage in the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a debtor in a Chapter 7 case cannot ‘strip off’ or void a wholly unsecured junior mortgage under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, I had the opportunity to discuss the ruling with Colin O’Keefe of LXBN TV.

The important role of standard terms of sale

The standard terms of sale of a supplier can form part of a credit application by its customer, appear on sales invoices or order forms or on the supplier’s website and there are many other combinations of documentation and procedures that can be used to establish written evidence of the terms of the contract between the supplier and its customer. Just as important, there are many reasons why these combinations may come unstuck.

This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled that debtors in Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases cannot “strip off,” or completely void, junior mortgages that—based on the value of the property and the amount of claims secured by senior mortgages—are completely underwater.

Timely proof of claim filings by secured creditors have “been a thorn in the side of many Chapter 13 cases involving secured creditors,” according to Judge Wood in In re Pajian. However, a recent Seventh Circuit decision may cause the industry to revise their current process for proof of claim filings. Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) requires creditors to file proofs of claim within 90 days of the date set for the meeting of creditors. Bankruptcy courts have come to conflicting conclusions on whether Rule 3002(c)’s deadline applies to all creditors or merely unsecured ones.

On 11 March 2015, the High Court delivered the following significant decisions (Grant Samuel Corporate Finance v Fletcher [2015] HCA 8 and Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd v Fletcher [2015] HCA 10) in relation to s588FF(3) of theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth).