It is said that the word bankruptcy originated in the middle ages from the term “breaking the bench.” At that time, rupturing a craftsman’s bench was the punishment for defaulting. Later, debtors were punished for their failure to pay their debts through imprisonment. Neither approach helped the creditor. Rather, it punished those dependent upon the debtor for support. In the late 19th Century, the American system of bankruptcy was created to break from these policies and provide debtors a fresh start.
In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.
A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.
Once again, a bankruptcy court has weighed in on the subject of discharging student loan debt in the context of a chapter 7 proceeding.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico added its voice to the split in judicial authority on whether a lien or similar transfer can be avoided under sections 544, 547, 548 and 549 of the Bankruptcy Code where only the debtor itself may benefit from the avoidance. Judge Thuma in his recent decision in U.S. Glove, Inc. v. Jacobs (In re U.S. Glove, Inc.), AP No. 21-1009, 2021 WL 2405399 (Bankr. D. N.M.
Michael Traison Chicago/NYC – 312.860.4230
Michael Kwiatkowski Garden City – 516.296.9144
Introduction
The automatic stay provided under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code is an injunction, arising when a bankruptcy case is filed, which prevents all proceedings or actions against the debtor or the property of the estate without court permission - the so-called “lifting of the stay”.[1]
In American jurisprudence, resolution of disputes often involves the use of important tools to obtain information necessary to achieving a client’s goals. These tools are collectively known as “discovery.” Discovery is most often used in litigation; however, it may also be used as part of the bankruptcy process, without the need for a pending lawsuit.
In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).
Key takeaways