In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers Hundy (liquidator), in the matter of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 1216, in which the Federal Court of Australia granted leave under rule 2.13(1) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (FCCR) for intervening parties to be h

Esta Resolución, tramitada con arreglo a lo previsto en el artículo 13 de la Circular 1/2021, de 20 de enero, de la CNMC, por la que se establece la metodología y condiciones del acceso y de la conexión a las redes de transporte y distribución de las instalaciones de producción de energía eléctrica, vendría a completar el marco normativo del acceso y conexión y daría cumplimiento a lo previsto en su Disposición Transitoria Única. De esta forma:

Con la asunción de estas dos autopistas, la empresa pública SEITTSA, dependiente del Ministerio de Fomento, ya gestiona la explotación y el mantenimiento de todas las que han entrado en fase de liquidación concursal, faltando únicamente por asumir la AP-41, “Madrid-Toledo”, que aún no ha llegado a dicha fase.

Revierten así al Estado, las dos últimas autopistas de peaje en fase de liquidación, después de que el Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 6 de Madrid, aprobase el plan de liquidación de las sociedades concesionarias.

The Cartagena-Vera and Alicante Ring-road sections of the AP-7 motorway are therefore handed back to the state, after Commercial Court 6 of Madrid approved the concessionaire's liquidation plan.

The AP-36 toll road is therefore handed back to the state, after Commercial Court 2 of Madrid approved the concessionaire's liquidation plan.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]