This week’s TGIF is the first of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

This first part looks closely at what the Court of Appeal did – and did not – decide in relation to how receivers and liquidators should deal with property recovered pursuant to an insolvent corporate trustee’s right of indemnity.

Three years ago, the Commercial Code amended the procedure for declaring debts in France with the aim of simplifying the management of insolvency proceedings.

Before this reform, the only way for creditors (excluding employees) to declare their debts was to send their proof of debt to the receiver within 2 months (or 4 months for those living outside France) from the publication of the judgment opening the safeguard procedure, adminstration or liquidation – or be debarred.

Il y a trois ans déjà, l’ordonnance du 12 mars 2014, conçue dans le but de « simplifier » la gestion des procédures collectives, est venue modifier la procédure de déclaration des créances.

Avant cette réforme, les créanciers (hors salariés) devaient adresser leur déclaration de créances au mandataire judiciaire dans un délai de deux mois (quatre mois pour ceux résidant hors de France Métropolitaine) à partir de la publication au BODACC du jugement ouvrant la procédure de sauvegarde, de redressement ou de liquidation judiciaire, sous peine de forclusion.

This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court:

This week’s TGIF considersAlleasing Pty Ltd, in the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd in which the Court considered the potential prejudice to creditors in extending the time for registration of security interests

Background

This week’s TGIF considers Bunnings Group Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] WASC 132, where the Court considered whether the order of registration of caveats determined the priority of competing unregistered charges.

BACKGROUND

Bunnings and Hanson each supplied building materials to Capital Works prior to Capital Works’ liquidation by means of a creditors’ voluntary winding up.

Creation of the charges

This week’s TGIF considers the recent proposals to crackdown on rogue directors and reduce the burden on FEG to pay unpaid workers.

A last resort – but for who?

On 17 May 2017, the Federal Government published a consultation paper inviting submissions on options for law reform to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (‘FEG’) scheme.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Boart Longyear Limited [2017] NSWSC 537 in which the NSW Supreme Court made orders to assist with the restructuring of a group of companies to the ultimate benefit of creditors.

BACKGROUND

A group of companies in financial difficulty sought the Court’s approval of two interdependent creditors’ schemes of arrangement which would effect a restructuring of the group’s financial affairs. The group had operations both in Australia and the US.

As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND