In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied a debtor’s motion to reject a contract as executory under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, holding that the prepetition entry of a court order which required specific performance of a contract rendered the contract non-executory and, therefore, non-rejectable. In re Bennett Enters., Case No. 20-23761 (JNP), 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 625 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2021) (“Bennett Enterprises”).
Background
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.
In a recent decision, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a bankruptcy court order that enjoined a plaintiff holding an asbestos claim from pursuing a state court products liability claim against the successor to Manville Forest Products Corporate (“MFP”). Notably, the Court reaffirmed that a claim relating to prepetition exposure to asbestos is a prepetition claim, even though the injury may not have manifested itself until after the petition date.
In a recent decision, Twiford Enters. v. Rolling Hills Bank & Trust (In re Twiford Enters.), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2964, 2020 WL 6075691 (10th Cir. BAP 2020), the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the lower court’s decision awarding postpetition interest pursuant to section 506(b). The disputed issue was whether a reference in the variable rate promissory notes to an internal rate index maintained by the bank was sufficiently clear and specific to support a claim for postpetition interest. The court held that it was.
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.