This week’s TGIF examines In the matter of Bytecan Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1910, in which the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the scope of the advantage to an indemnifying creditor available under section 564.

The facts

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2019 (Cth) (Amending Act) passed into law on 17 February 2020, over a year after it was first introduced to Parliament.   

Placing phoenix activity firmly in its crosshairs, the Amending Act introduces long anticipated reforms to Australia’s efforts to curb phoenix activity.  

Background 

This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Re Watch Works Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor; Ex Parte Francis & Ors [2020] WASC 6, in which the Supreme Court of Western Australia determined two linked companies were to be a ‘pooled group’ in order to satisfy the external debts payable by both companies.

What happened?

In McKillen v. Wallace (In re Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd.), 2019 WL 4740249 (D. Del. Sept. 27, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware had an opportunity to consider, as an apparent matter of first impression, whether the U.S. common law "Barton Doctrine" applies extraterritorially. One of the issues considered by the district court on appeal was whether parties attempting to sue a foreign representative in a chapter 15 case must first obtain permission to sue from the foreign court that appointed the foreign representative.

In the July/August 2019 issue of the Business Restructuring Review, we discussed a landmark decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 913 F.3d 533(5th Cir. 2019) ("Ultra I").

Under the "single-satisfaction rule," although a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") may seek to avoid and recover avoidable transfers of a debtor's property from more than one transferee, the aggregate recovery is limited to the value of the property transferred. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined this rule in Jones v. Brand Law Firm PA (In re Belmonte), 931 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2019).

Except for disastrous fires that sparked the largest bankruptcy filing of the year, liabilities arising from the opioid crisis, the fallout from price-fixing, and corporate restructuring shenanigans, economic, market, and leverage factors generally shaped the large corporate bankruptcy landscape in 2019. California electric utility PG&E Corp.

A basic tenet of bankruptcy law, premised on the legal separateness of a debtor prior to filing for bankruptcy and the estate created upon a bankruptcy filing, is that prepetition debts are generally treated differently than debts incurred by the estate, which are generally treated as priority administrative expenses. However, this seemingly straightforward principle is sometimes difficult to apply in cases where a debt technically "arose" or "was incurred" prepetition, but does not became payable until sometime during the bankruptcy case. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Proposed U.S. Treasury and IRS Regulations Limiting Use of NOLs

To encourage creditors, equity interest holders, indenture trustees and unofficial committees to take actions that benefit a bankruptcy estate, section 503(b)(3)(D) of the Bankruptcy Code confers administrative priority on their claims for expenses incurred in making a "substantial contribution" in a chapter 9 or chapter 11 case. Administrative expense status is also given under section 503(b)(4) to their claims for reimbursement of reasonable professional fees incurred in making a substantial contribution. The U.S.