In the English High Court, the joint administrators of four English companies within the former Lehman Brothers group sought directions from the Court in respect of a proposed settlement. The settlement would put to rest substantial inter-company claims including those at issue in the 'Waterfall III' proceedings.
In 2013, Mrs Hanara was adjudicated bankrupt. The Assignee subsequently disclaimed Mrs Hanara's half-interest in a Hastings property (the Interest), in which Mrs Hanara had very little equity. In 2016, the owner of the other half-share in the property, Mr Hanara, was also adjudicated bankrupt. The Assignee, acting in respect of both bankrupt estates, looked again at the likely equity that might be available in the property. The Assignee considered that, on its own, Mr Hanara's one half- share in the property would be unsaleable and therefore applied under s 119
In this Australian case, a major creditor of the company in question alleged that it was involved in phoenix activity and offered to fund a public examination of the director provided that the creditor's solicitors would act for the liquidators in that examination. The liquidators refused the offer and, in response, the creditor applied to have the liquidators removed.
In Mclean v Trustees of the Bankruptcy Estate of Dent [2016] EWHC 2650, the High Court considered the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over (among other things) a dog.
A company and partnership borrowed funds from two sources – Barclays Bank and Lady Morrison. Barclays held, among other things, charges over farms owned by individual partners and an agricultural charge under the Agricultural Credits Act 1928 (UK), including a charge over a dog. Lady Morrison only held charges over the farms.
On 10 October 2019 the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, announced an upcoming inquiry into insolvency practices. The inquiry was announced in light of rising concerns as to the efficacy of the voluntary administration process for SMEs and family-owned businesses, and concerns with the conduct of insolvency practitioners more generally.
Creditors' compromise Part 1: the New Zealand Supreme Court view
The Supreme Court has recently confirmed that the courts will adopt "a practical business approach (as against one which is unduly technical)" to the determination of due debts when considering a company's ability to pay its due debts.
Arena Capital Limited (Arena) was a Ponzi scheme. Arena's liquidators applied under s284(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 for directions regarding the distribution of assets under liquidation.
The Court held that dividing the assets into trust assets and general assets was inefficient in the circumstances and ordered a "common pool approach." The Court ordered distribution on a pro rata, pari passu basis. The investors had borne the same degree of risk and it was not cost-effective to trace the numerous small contributions.
Commercial Factors Ltd v Meltzer concerned a funding agreement between Commercial Factors Ltd (CFL) and the liquidators of Blue Chip New Zealand Ltd (in liq) (Company) by which CFL agreed to lend $67,750 to allow the liquidators to obtain an opinion on the merits of claims against the Company's directors.
If proceedings were commenced, the Company was to pay 2.5% of any proceeds received to CFL. If the Company did not commence proceedings but otherwise received funds, the agreement stipulated CFL's right to repayment after any liquidator costs.
Liquidator Mark Norrie has been hit with a second order to pay costs this year in relation to liquidation proceedings. In Norrie v Time3 Global Ltd, the High Court addressed the issue of costs resulting from a quashed order to set aside a transaction made pursuant to s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.