Terminating DoCA's (Part 3) – Administrators' Casting Vote
Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")
IMO Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")
Summary
Where there is a deadlock between the majority in value of creditors and those creditors with a majority in number on the vote for a DoCA, the administrator has a casting vote.
Terminating DoCA's (Part 2) – Unfair Prejudice or Injustice
Canstruct Pty Limited v Project Sea Dragon Pty Limited (No. 4) [2024] FCA 112 ("Canstruct")1
Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")
Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")
Deeds of Company Arrangement – Insured Claims
Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operations Pty Ltd as Trustee v PCA (Qld) Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] QSC 178 ("Destination Brisbane")
In Destination Brisbane two questions, which concerned the entitlements of insured creditors under a DoCA, arose for consideration in the context of an application for judicial advice:
Due Diligence by Voluntary Administrators in respect of their Appointment
Robust Construction Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1156 ("Robust")
DoCA's: What Claims can be Released?
PK Riddell Investments Pty Ltd v Upwards Up And Gone Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 159 ("Riddell Investments")
Limiting Liability of Administrators for Employee Wages
Walley IMO PGP Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1554 ("PGP Group") and Crosbie IMO Godfreys Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 60 ("Godfreys")
Voluntary administrators have been able to seek orders releasing them from their personal liability for debts incurred by them in the course of conducting a company's business. That relief has been available where it has been necessary to support the continuing operation of that business.
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.