In a March 29, 2016 decision,1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") held that creditors are preempted from asserting state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbors" that, among other things, exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security (here, in the context of a leveraged buyout ("LBO")), from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for distribution to creditors.

On March 23, 2016, the European Commission launched a consultation seeking views on key insolvency principles and standards which could ensure that national insolvency frameworks work in a cross-border context. The consultation is part of the Commission’s Capital Markets Union Action Plan which aims to remove barriers to the free flow of capital. Responses will be used to identify which aspects could be included in a legislative initiative or other related actions.

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

On January 4, 2016, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) deviated from SDNY precedent and held that, despite the absence of clear Congressional intent, the avoidance powers provided for under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code can be applied extraterritorially. As a result, a fraudulent transfer of property of a debtor’s estate that occurs outside of the United States can be recovered under Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.

On December 14, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that claims arising from securities of a debtor’s affiliate must be subordinated to all claims or interests senior or equal to claims of the same type as the underlying securities in the bankruptcy proceeding.

On November 30, 2015, the US Federal Reserve Board approved a final rule detailing its procedures for emergency lending under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act limited the Federal Reserve Board’s emergency lending authority to programs and facilities with “broad-based eligibility” established with the approval of the US Secretary of Treasury and prohibited lending to entities that are insolvent, among other things.

On November 12, 2015, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association re-launched the ISDA Resolution Stay Protocol. The new Protocol, called the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol, was developed in coordination with the Financial Stability Board. The ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol includes an annex covering securities financing transactions, developed by ISDA with the International Capital Market Association, the International Securities Lending Association and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

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