Adjustments to certain dollar amounts in the Bankruptcy Code may affect your decision and strategy to either file a bankruptcy or in defending certain actions filed against you or your company. The automatic adjustments to the dollar amounts in various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101 et seq. went into effect on April 1, 2013. You may access the official forms by clicking the following link to the United States Courts:

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in CBA Corporate Services (NSW) Pty Ltd, in the matter of ZYX Learning Centres Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) v Walker [2013] FCA 243 confirms that liquidators owe a heavy duty of disclosure to the court and that the materiality of facts to be disclosed is to be assessed on a case by case basis.

Generally speaking, other than in limited prescribed situations, an insolvency practitioner can only be removed by Court order. Often applications are made for the removal because of a perceived bias, however these are not always successful, as was seen in Cote v Devine [2013] WASC 79, handed down last week. New reforms allowing creditors to resolve to remove insolvency practitioners without recourse to the Court have the potential to significantly affect this.

In the recent decision of Re Sports Alive Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] VSC 69, the Supreme Court of Victoria dealt with questions referred to it by a liquidator in respect of segregated bank accounts which might either be available for costs and the general body of creditors or alternatively only for beneficiaries on whose behalf the trustee should have held funds.  It was accepted that the determination was essentially a question of fact, and in the face of ambiguous facts, the Court determined that the onus was on the beneficiaries and not the liquidator. 

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy many businesses have been negatively impacted financially throughout regions from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.  Hardest hit are businesses located not only along the New Jersey, Staten Island and  Long Island  NY  coasts but in areas  that  have never experienced such a devastating disaster.  Areas  such as  Hoboken NJ,lower Manhattan and the NYC  East Side.  Even  businesses  located in inland  communit

In the recent decision of Oswal v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2013] FCAFC 9, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia recently confirmed that receivers and managers will be justified in refusing to allow a director access to books and records of the company where access may adversely impact on the realisation of the secured assets.

THE FACTS

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court (Court) decision in In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) No 2 [2012] NSWSC 1426 (23 November 2012) confirms that liquidators who properly incur costs and expenses in seeking court directions regarding the distribution of trust property and, in recovering such property, will generally be able to recover their relevant remuneration, costs and expenses from that trust property.

The recent Supreme Court of New South Wales decision in Re V & M Davidovic Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1598 clarifies where the directors of a company in receivership will be authorised to defend a winding up application and confirms that Courts will be reluctant to adjourn such applications in order to allow the directors to gather evidence of solvency.

The Facts

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal confirmed the rights of receivers to claim legal professional privilege.  A little over a year ago, we considered the first instance judgment in a previous TGIF article. 

THE BACKGROUND FACTS

The recent Federal Magistrate’s decision in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Oswal [2012] FMCA 1082 reminds us that leaving a jurisdiction does not mean leaving your business behind, including the business of paying debts.

Background

Mr Oswal guaranteed a loan of $27 million from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) to Garuda Aviation Pty Ltd (Garuda) for the purchase of a jet plane.  Mr Oswal was, and remains, a director of Garuda.