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.

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.

To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.

One year ago, we wrote that, unlike in 2019, when the large business bankruptcy landscape was generally shaped by economic, market, and leverage factors, the COVID-19 pandemic dominated the narrative in 2020. The pandemic may not have been responsible for every reversal of corporate fortune in 2020, but it weighed heavily on the scale, particularly for companies in the energy, retail, restaurant, entertainment, health care, travel, and hospitality industries.

In 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made headlines when it ruled that creditors' state law fraudulent transfer claims arising from the 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of Tribune Co. ("Tribune") were preempted by the safe harbor for certain securities, commodity, or forward contract payments set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. In that ruling, In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 946 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 209 L. Ed. 2d 568 (U.S. Apr.