This week’s TGIF is the first of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

This first part looks closely at what the Court of Appeal did – and did not – decide in relation to how receivers and liquidators should deal with property recovered pursuant to an insolvent corporate trustee’s right of indemnity.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of SurfStitch Group Limited [2018] NSWSC 164, where the Court refused to allow administrators to value claims of class action group members at a nominal $1 for voting at the second creditors’ meeting.

What happened?

On 11 December 2017, the administrators of SurfStitch filed an application seeking orders:

This week’s TGIF considers the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Blakeley v CGU Insurance Ltd [2017] VSCA 378, which confirms the rights of third parties to seek direct access to proceeds of insurance.

The decision confirms that, in certain circumstances, third party creditors can commence proceedings against a defendant and also join the defendant’s insurers to those proceedings.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Kreab Gavin Anderson (Australia) Ltd, in the matter of Kreab Gavin Anderson (Australia) Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1473 and an application for approval of remuneration for work carried out by the applicants as administrators and then liquidators of the plaintiff company, in circumstances where those appointments were subsequently found to be invalid.

WHAT HAPPENED?

With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.

In Short

The Situation: In cross-border restructuring cases, court-approved insolvency protocols are applied to facilitate communication between U.S. and foreign courts and standardize certain common procedures. The protocols are sometimes adapted to address case-specific issues.

The Result: Case-specific provisions tend to address information-sharing guidelines, claims reconciliation, the management of assets, and dispute resolution.

In the March/April 2013 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on an opinion by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluding that a chapter 15 debtor’s sale of claims against Bernard Madoff’s defunct brokerage company was not subject to review as an asset sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

This week’s TGIF considers what the UK decision of Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC [2017] EWHC 1472 means for insolvency practitioners seeking to access potentially privileged documents created by employees of appointee companies.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.

What happened?

On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.

In Short

The Situation: For cross-border insolvency matters, parties increasingly depend on court-approved protocols to assist in the management of complex insolvencies involving a debtor or debtors whose assets, liabilities, or operations span international borders.

The Action: Courts in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and some U.S. bankruptcy districts have implemented Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters.