The brick-and-mortar retail industry has been in a state of flux since online retailers such as Amazon started business in the mid-‘90s. Recent years have been particularly difficult for retailers: in 2018, retailers represented 5 of the 10 largest Chapter 11 bankruptcies. The pace of retail bankruptcies showed no signs of slowing in 2019, with retailers such as Payless Holding LLC, Forever 21, Gymboree, Z Gallerie, and many others all filing Chapter 11 petitions.

The CFPB announced that it settled with Think Finance, LLC and six subsidiaries on February 5.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

In a unanimous opinion released last week, the Supreme Court provided guidance as to how to determine the finality of an order in a bankruptcy case for purposes of an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Court held that the adjudication of a creditor’s motion for relief from stay is properly considered a discrete and independent proceeding within a bankruptcy case and is immediately appealable.

Recently, the First Circuit held that a parent’s tuition payments on behalf of an adult child do not benefit the parent’s bankruptcy estate, and a Chapter 7 trustee may therefore claw the payments back as fraudulent transfers.

In Carrello,^[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.

The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Crocker v. Navient Solutions is a stark reminder to for-profit student lenders and servicers that bankruptcy caselaw continues to evolve relating to discharge. In Crocker, the Fifth Circuit joined the trend of cases holding that private student loans are dischargeable in bankruptcy.

The circuit courts continue to wrestle over the duties imposed by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay on creditors concerning turnover of a debtor’s impounded vehicle. Is a creditor required to automatically turn over the vehicle as soon as the bankruptcy petition is filed, or can it retain possession while awaiting an order of the bankruptcy court adjudicating turnover in an adversary proceeding?

The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.

In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.