The Turnbull Government’s much-heralded ‘Innovation Statement’ was released yesterday. It contained wide-ranging statements on reforms aimed at fostering innovation across a number of sectors in the Australian economy.

One important reform area is in Australian corporate insolvency law.

Corporate insolvency law reform timetable

The Innovation Statement includes important content for the reform of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. It is part of an ongoing reform exercise which has followed this timetable to date:

On November 30, 2015, the City of Detroit began filing complaints against vendors and service providers seeking to avoid and recover potentially “preferential payments” made by the City of Detroit during the 90 days preceding entry of the Order for Relief in its Chapter 9 bankruptcy case.  The Order for Relief was entered on December 5, 2013, and the City must file its claims by December 5, 2015.

As part of a modernization effort that began in 2008 that is being spearheaded by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules, most official bankruptcy forms are being replaced with revised, reformatted and renumbered versions, effective December 1, 2015.

All is not lost when a debtor files Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. In addition to teaching the ins and outs of how to collect money and assets in a Chapter 13, the video below discusses the basics of a Chapter 13, motions for relief from stay, co-debtor stay, non-dischargeable claims, and other topics to efficiently and effectively obtain what is rightfully yours in a bankruptcy. View the video below to learn more about Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Consider this situation: a dispute has arisen between two parties in relation to an agreement which is subject to an arbitration clause. Separately, a winding up application has been made against one of the parties to the arbitration in the jurisdiction in which it is incorporated. An arbitral award is obtained against the potentially insolvent company. That company has assets in Hong Kong, against which the creditor is now seeking to enforce their rights.

The scope and extent of debts that may be discharged is an often litigated issue in bankruptcy. In a recent Chapter 13 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the bankruptcy court considered whether an otherwise dischargeable government penalty debt is nondischargeable if the debt arises from fraud^.[1]

The unanimous decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in Templeton v Australian and Securities Investments Commission [2015] FCAFC 137 confirms that the concept of proportionality is a well-recognised factor in considering the question of reasonable remuneration for an insolvency practitioner, and that, in assessing a remuneration claim, the Court can take into account the quality and complexity of the work as well as the value and nature of any property dealt with and the time reasonably spent.

General introduction to trust margin trading

The Bankruptcy Code is federal law. It affords debtors protections - including the automatic stay and debt discharge injunction - that hold creditors at bay.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is also federal law. It contains limitations on what a debt collector can do when attempting to collect a debt.

Because debts - and more particularly attempts to collect those debts - drive people into bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are sometimes forced to grapple with questions of how the Bankruptcy Code and FDCPA interact and impact each other.

Sixth Circuit Affirms Bankruptcy Court Order Allowing Amended Exemptions Following Re-Opening of Case

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a debtor is required to file a schedule listing all of the debtor’s property. This includes cash, hard assets such as furniture and cars, as well as intangibles such as causes of action or potential causes of action. The Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to “exempt” certain types of property from the estate, enabling them to retain exempted assets post-bankruptcy.