In the first judgment under Singapore’s new ‘super priority’ DIP financing regime, the Singapore High Court declined to grant priority status to funds to be advanced to the Attilan Group.
The Singapore regime is the first to import US Chapter 11-style DIP priority funding mechanisms into a jurisdiction with primarily English-law based corporate law and insolvency regimes.
The judgment discusses how Singapore provisions align with established principles under US Bankruptcy Code provisions and case law.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of Official Assignee in Bankruptcy of the Property of Cooksley, in the matter of Cooksley v Cooksley, in which the Federal Court granted assistance to the High Court of NZ in administering a bankruptcy.
BACKGROUND
This TGIF examines the determination of an application by liquidators of the Diploma Group of companies to be appointed as administrators of Diploma company and put a DOCA proposal to creditors.
Background
On 6 September 2017, Federal Court of Australia appointed liquidators to Diploma Group Limited (Diploma) and other companies within the Diploma Group (Group Companies). Prior to that appointment, the liquidators had been appointed as Diploma’s administrators and then provisional liquidators.
This week’s TGIF considers whether a flexible payment arrangement between a subsidiary and its holding company creditor meant the parent suffered no loss on the insolvency of the subsidiary.
What happened?
On 17 August 2017, the West Australian Court of Appeal published its reasons in Perrine v Carrello [2017] WASCA 151 drawing a close to the long-running dispute between the Perrines and the liquidator (Liquidator) of their failed pod-home building company (PodCo).
The NSW Supreme Court has given a Landlord leave to commence proceedings against a company for rent and make good costs arising after the date of the DOCA.
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.
Major law changes intended to make Singapore the region’s pre-eminent restructuring and insolvency hub have now come into effect.
On 22 May 2017, the Singapore Ministry of Finance issued a notice that sections 22 to 34, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 50, 53(3) and (6) and 54 (the Relevant Sections) of the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017 (the Amendment Act) would come into operation on 23 May 2017.
The Singapore Government has just passed the Companies (Amendment) Bill 13/2017 (the Bill), which contains major changes to Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws. As planned, these changes are expected to come into effect at the latest by the second quarter of 2017,1 and will be a major shake-up to the restructuring landscape of the region.
On 1 February 2017, the Supreme Court of Singapore and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware announced that they will formally implement the Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-border Insolvency Matters ("Guidelines").
This week’s TGIF considers a NSW Court of Appeal decision which confirms that liquidators who bring a claim for preference payments within the limitation period may amend that claim to capture additional transactions otherwise subject to a statutory bar.
Background
Sydney Recycling Park (SRP) provided “tipping services” to Cardinal Group (Cardinal), who were in the business of “waste management”. Cardinal ran into some financial difficulties and on 1 February 2012, it was placed into liquidation.