As a company turns in the widening gyre of financial distress, its directors and officers are often confronted with situations that require them to make difficult decisions. Should things fall apart, those decisions may give rise to claims that directors or officers breached their fiduciary duties to the company. A
Bankruptcy courts typically rely on three valuation methods to determine a debtor’s enterprise value: comparable company analysis, precedent transaction analysis, and discounted cash flow analysis.
Discounted cash flow analysis is a mainstay among the valuation methodologies used by restructuring professionals and bankruptcy courts to determine the enterprise value of a distressed business. Despite its prevalence, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently concluded the DCF method was inappropriate for the valuation of “dry bulk” shipping companies.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) v Saad Investments Company Limited (SICL) and Singularis Holdings Ltd (SHL)involved an application by PwC for the setting aside of orders made by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in favour of the liquidators that required the production of documents relating to SICL and SHL. Included among the grounds on which PwC relied to set aside the order were that:
A case recently heard in the UK suggests that, in certain circumstances, a claim for conversion of assets may be brought against administrators and liquidators of a company. While the claim did not succeed on the facts inEuromex Ventures Ltd & Anor v BNP Paribas Real Estate Advisory & Ors [2013] EWHC 3007 (Ch), the case illustrates that claimants may bring a proceeding on the basis of alleged acts of conversion by a company's liquidators and administrators.
In our December 2012 insolvency update we reported on CP Asset Management Ltd v Grant, in which the High Court upheld a creditors' resolution to appoint new liquidators. The High Court found that a resolution should only be set aside when it was found that the prejudice to creditors was unreasonable. In the High Court, the minority of creditors who voted against the resolution were unable to e
Rowmata Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (RHL) & Anor v Hildred & Ors [2013] NZHC 2435 involved a sale and purchase agreement whereby land was sold to two trusts, subject to finance. RHL (a company incorporated by the purchasing trusts) claimed and received a GST refund for the purchase. However, on settlement date, RHL defaulted on the purchase, went into liquidation, and the GST refund became repayable to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD).
In Madsen-Ries v Rapid Construction Ltd [2013] NZCA 489, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning a liquidator's attempt to have a payment set aside.
The Australian Corporations Act 2001 provides that a company in liquidation that holds insurance for the benefit of third parties must pay the proceeds of the insurance policy to those third parties in priority to other creditors. Insurance proceeds payable to third parties under this provision are subject to deductions of "any expenses of or incidental to getting in" those proceeds. The liquidator of Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd sought directions from the court regarding the liquidator's entitlement to deduct his fees and expenses from the insurance proceeds.