“Reasonably equivalent value” – – part of the standard for evaluation of potential constructive fraudulent transfers – – is both subjective and imprecise. The words “equivalent value” require the court to make a subjective judgment whether consideration received in exchange for a transfer is worth the same as the consideration transferred by the debtor. And the considerations exchanged by the two parties are necessarily of differing characters. A transaction may involve the exchange of money for a tangible asset or for services.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Ziziphus Pty Ltd v Pluton Resources Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) where the Court favoured the public interest in terminating a DOCA

Background

A company which was engaged in iron ore mining, had been struggling financially for a number of years. In 2013, receivers were appointed to manage the company’s property and since mid-2015, the company had failed to discharge its royalty obligations to the State of Western Australia.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Compton v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 106, where the Court exercised its power to “go behind” a judgment upon which a petitioning creditor relied as proof of a debt that was owed.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This week’s TGIF considers Britax Childcare Pty Ltd, in the matter of Infa Products Pty Ltd v Infa Products Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 848 which considers setting aside a DOCA and the administrator’s casting vote.

FACTS OF THIS CASE

After complex litigation with Britax, Infa Products lost the case and as a direct consequence, appointed administrators.

Last week, our post “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” discussed a Texas bankruptcy court decision rejecting efforts by debtor Sam Wyly to claim as exempt a number of offshore private annuities.

The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Brandon Industries (Vic) Pty Ltd v Locker Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 373 where the Court dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand due to the applicant’s failure to establish a genuine dispute or offsetting claim pursuant to section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Legend International Holdings Inc (In Liquidation) v Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd & Kisan International Trading FZE [2016] VSCA 151 in which it was held that s 581 does not prohibit a winding up order where Chapter 11 proceedings are on foot.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Blue Sennar Air Pty Ltd (in liq); In the matter of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 772 in which the Court clarified the rights of a liquidator to disclaim “unprofitable contracts” pursuant to section 568(1A) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 14 May 2015, the defendant liquidator was appointed administrator of Eye Plantain Pty Ltd (Eye Plantain).  He became liquidator of Eye Plantain shortly thereafter.