This week’s TGIF concerns Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Admins Appt) v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, in which the New South Wales Supreme Court determined that an insolvent company’s creditors could properly make a DOCA to maintain the right under security of payment legislation to recover amounts that would have been lost on entry into liquidation.

Key takeaways

In Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1623, the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) provided immunity from insolvency proceedings in relation to a foreign corporation that is State-controlled.

Key takeaways

Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).

This week’s TGIF considers Hundy (liquidator), in the matter of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 1216, in which the Federal Court of Australia granted leave under rule 2.13(1) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (FCCR) for intervening parties to be h

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

The foundation of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code and similar legislation enacted by other countries to govern cross-border bankruptcy cases is "comity" and cooperation among U.S. and foreign courts. The importance of these concepts was recently illustrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. In In re Varig Logistica S.A., 2021 WL 5045684 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct.

Despite the absence of any explicit directive in the Bankruptcy Code, it is well understood that a debtor must file a chapter 11 petition in good faith. The bankruptcy court can dismiss a bad faith filing "for cause," which has commonly been found to exist in cases where the debtor seeks chapter 11 protection as a tactic to gain an advantage in pending litigation. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S.

Chapter 15 petitions seeking recognition in the United States of foreign bankruptcy proceedings have increased significantly during the more than 16 years since chapter 15 was enacted in 2005. Among the relief commonly sought in such cases is discovery concerning the debtor's assets or asset transfers involving U.S.-based entities. A nonprecedential ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has created a circuit split on the issue of whether discovery orders entered by a U.S. bankruptcy court in a chapter 15 case are immediately appealable.

U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." It has been generally understood that recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding under chapter 15 is a prerequisite to a U.S. court enforcing, under the doctrine of comity, an order or judgment entered in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding or a provision in foreign bankruptcy law applicable to a debtor in such a proceeding.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways