If a building contractor becomes insolvent, but the build is covered by an NHBC Buildmark warranty providing insolvency cover, when does time start to run for the insured to start proceedings against an insurer who fails to pay a claim?
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has recently considered this question in the context of an application for summary judgment made by the NHBC, in Peabody Trust v National House-Building Council [2024].
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.
Recent high-profile contractor collapses have made many acutely aware of the need to ensure they are adequately protected in the event of employer or contractor insolvency. This increase in insolvencies has also placed significant stress on the construction bond market. Contractor insolvencies put pressure on surety bond providers, which in turn can lead to increased rates and more stringent criteria being imposed on contractors seeking bonds.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525), Justice Black determined that a payment made by a third party was not an unfair preference because the payment did not diminish assets available to creditors.
Key Takeaways
The Federal Court in Morgan, in the matter of Traditional Values Management Limited (in liq)[2024] FCA 74, approved an abridged process that allowed the liquidator to admit debts of a group of unsecured creditors without requiring a formal proof of debt.
Key Takeaways
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.