Australian-listed Slater & Gordon, the world’s first publicly traded law firm, is preparing to post what is understood to be legal sector’s biggest ever annual loss.  A profit warning filed with the Australian Securities Exchange, reveals the firm's full-year net loss after tax for the year ended 30 June is expected to total A$1,017.6m. 

In Evans v Jones the directors of a liquidated company sought to defend a claim brought by the liquidators that loan repayments were insolvent transactions by asserting that the company was balance-sheet solvent at the time of the transactions.  The directors based this claim on the company having contingent assets in the form of dividend payments (to the directors) that were later found to be unlawful. 

In Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Large Private Beneficial Owners (In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.), 818 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the “safe harbor” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code for settlement payments and for payments made in connection with securities contracts preempted claims under state law by creditors to avoid as fraudulent transfers pre-bankruptcy payments made to shareholders in connection with a leveraged buyout (“LBO”) of the debtor.

On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings declaring unconstitutional a 2014 Puerto Rico law, portions of which mirrored chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, that would have allowed the commonwealth’s public instrumentalities to restructure a significant portion of Puerto Rico’s bond debt (widely reported to be as much as $72 billion). In Commonwealth v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr., 2016 BL 187308 (U.S.

In 2014, Forge Group Construction Pty (Forge) went into liquidation.  Receivers were also appointed.  The Forge insolvency has already been the subject of litigation in the Australian courts in respect of certain Australian PPSA issues (see our previous summary here).

In Australian Securities & Investment Commission v Planet Platinum Ltd [2016] VSC 120, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) sought, and was granted, a declaration from the Supreme Court of Victoria that the appointment of the administrator of Planet Platinum Ltd (Planet Platinum) was invalid and of no effect. 

A proposed shakeup of the UK’s corporate insolvency regime will impose a three month freeze on legal action against stressed businesses who are investigating rescue options.  In addition to this moratorium, measures have been suggested to help businesses to continue trading through the restructuring process.  The intention is that this will prevent struggling companies being held to ransom by key suppliers, and will also assist in developing flexible restructuring plans.  The proposal would make rescue schemes binding, even on secured creditors.

Mr and Ms Moncur were the sole directors and effective owners of Monocrane NZ (Monocrane). Following their separation, they entered into a relationship property agreement under which Mr Moncur assumed full ownership and control of Monocrane, including agreeing to assume sole responsibility for the overdrawn shareholders' current account. In return, Ms Moncur agreed to resign her directorship, transfer her shares to Mr Moncur and pay various joint debts.

Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor.  The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.

In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:

The Court of Appeal in Madsen-Ries v Petera considered the reasonableness of directors' remuneration in circumstances when a company is in a dire financial position.  Mr and Mrs Petera, directors of a failed transport business, were asked by the liquidators to repay the salaries they declared for tax purposes, because they had not complied with the certification requirements under section 161 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act), being to satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds that the payments were fair to the company.