The Federal Court affirms that a secured creditor may be subrogated to the entitlements of priority creditors, to the extent that the Receivers’ payments to priority creditors have diminished its security.

On June 9, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of key rulings regarding the extent of a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority.¹ Notably, while Monday’s Executive Benefitsdecision answered one important question arising out of the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall,² it also left the primary question that resulted in a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals to be decided another day.

The Aftermath of Stern v. Marshall

In the wake of the global financial crisis, Hong Kong’s key financial regulators, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Insurance Authority (IA), have jointly issued a consultation paper (Paper) that outlines proposals for establishing a resolution regime for significant financial institutions (FIs) that are in crisis or likely to collapse.

Would you know what to do if you learned that one of your franchisees had filed for bankruptcy? Perhaps more importantly, would you know what not to do? While each circumstance and franchise agreement is different, there is a general framework for dealing with a franchisee in bankruptcy. Here we’ll introduce some of the issues you are likely to encounter throughout the bankruptcy process.

The Automatic Stay

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently affirmed the bankruptcy court decision in the Qimonda AG chapter 15 bankruptcy case,¹ providing that holders of intellectual property licenses based on U.S. patents are entitled to the special protections contained in 11 U.S.C. § 365(n).² In so doing, the court bolstered the rights of U.S. intellectual property licensees whose agreements might otherwise be vulnerable to termination in a cross-border insolvency proceeding.

Background

In a decision handed down earlier today, in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2013] HCA 51,  the majority of the High Court upheld the Victorian Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the liquidators of an insolvent landlord can disclaim a lease, thereby extinguishing the tenant’s leasehold interest.

Insurers and insureds do not bear the risk of a contractor becoming insolvent when undertaking insured repair work. The insurer’s only obligation is to pay its appointed contractor and not any subcontractors engaged by that party.

Background

In 2010, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated several amendments (Amendments) to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 9) designed to address problems that have arisen since revised Article 9 went into effect in 2001. Most, but not all, of the Amendments address the proper way to reflect debtor names on financing statements.

Timing and Enactment

Summary

Later this year the High Court will hear an appeal from the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202.

The decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial judge were considered in our earlier alert that can be accessed by clicking here.