The Federal Court of Australia in Frisken, in the matter of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98 has considered a dispute between a receiver and the director of the company as to whether the provisional liquidator, Mr Banerjee, should be appointed as the liquidator. 

The director sought the appointment of different liquidators on the basis that Mr Banerjee’s conduct as provisional liquidator was such that a reasonable person might apprehend that he might not be impartial as liquidator. 

In Lane v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Lane), No. 18-60059, 2020 WL 2832270 (9th Cir. June 1, 2020), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether a bankruptcy court may void a lien under section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when a claim relating to the lien is disallowed because the creditor who filed the proof of claim did not prove that it was the person entitled to enforce the debt the lien secures. Employing a narrow reading of section 506(d), the Ninth Circuit answered the question in the negative.

The Government has published the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (the Bill), an omnibus bill containing amendments (both temporary and permanent) to several acts. These amendments aim to both assist organisations in effectively managing the “immediate impacts of the response to COVID-19”, as well as mitigating some of the pandemic’s “unnecessary and potentially longer-term impacts on society”.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.

High Court provides guidance on voluntary administration and creditors’ meetings under COVID-19 Alert Level 4

A recent decision of the High Court provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Christchurch based company Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation) (Cryptopia) operated a cryptocurrency exchange. Account holders were able to deposit cryptocurrencies into the exchange, and carry out trades with each other.

In January 2019 the exchange was hacked and cryptocurrencies valued at approximately NZD30m were stolen. Cryptopia closed after the hack, re-opened for a short period, and was then placed into insolvent liquidation in May 2019. David Ruscoe and Russell Moore of Grant Thornton New Zealand were appointed liquidators.

A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion on December 24, 2019, In re Homebanc Mortgage Crop., No. 18-2887, 2019 WL 7161215(3rd Cir. De. 24, 2019) that has significant consequences for participants in repurchases transactions. The court affirmed the lower court judgment, that the securities had been liquidated in good faith.

Facts

Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code is a safe harbor provision that establishes that a trustee or debtor-in-possession may not avoid a transfer “by or to... a financial institution.. in connection with a securities contract” other than under an intentional fraudulent conveyance theory. On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit in Note Holders v.

In 2007, Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, LP dba Foxwoods Casino Philadelphia (“Plaintiff”) secured a gaming license from Pennsylvania for $50,000,000 with the understanding that it open its casino business within one year. Plaintiff failed to do so and, despite a number of extensions, Pennsylvania cancelled and revoked the gaming license in December 2010. Without a gaming license, Plaintiff found itself in chapter 11 by spring of 2014.