When a debtor files for bankruptcy, it’s axiomatic that all creditors, wherever located, must immediately cease their efforts to collect on debts owed to them by that debtor, right? Not necessarily so, says the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, insofar as those creditors and their collateral are located outside of the United States.
The Bankruptcy Protector
Envision a scenario in which you purchased a right of first refusal for a parcel of real estate. That right, as bargained for, would let you purchase the parcel if it was put up for sale by matching any competing bidder’s offer. As a diligent prospective purchaser, you would naturally record that right of first refusal in the appropriate land records. So far so good.
A person in possession of a debtor’s property upon a bankruptcy filing now has more guidance from the Supreme Court as to the effect of the automatic stay. In City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2021), handed down on January 14 of 2021, the Court was faced with the issue of whether the City of Chicago (the “City”) was liable for violation of the automatic stay for refusing to return vehicles it impounded pre-petition. Issuing a narrow decision under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court held that it was not.
On 26 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act[1] (the Act) came into force.
The Act has significant implications for supply contracts as it will prevent many suppliers ending existing contracts once a business is insolvent. The Act will make a big impact on existing supply contracts, and will also affect the drafting and negotiation of new contracts.
The COVID-19 crisis is already showing signs of pushing the UK economy into recession, has undoubtedly impacted the M&A market in the UK and increased the likelihood of businesses entering into insolvency proceedings. However, history tells us that shocks to the market do give rise to opportunities it's a question of knowing where they are and being prepared.
The Government continues to develop its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this Insight we examine the weekend's announcement from the Business Secretary that provides some welcome good news for directors.
Healthcare workers are on the frontline of fighting COVID-19, but directors of companies have an equally important task, that of keeping the wheels turning and helping minimise the damage to the economy and the livelihoods of their employees, and keeping otherwise viable businesses intact for when the crisis passes.
How should directors respond to the fast-moving situation and the challenges posed by assessing and dealing with the impact on the business?
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.