The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment on the remuneration of registered liquidators.
Sakr concerned an appeal by Sanderson as liquidator of Sakr against an order determining his remuneration on anad valorem basis, without reference to his time attendances or hourly rate. Due to the importance of the issues, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA) appeared and made submissions on the issue.
In Power Rental Op Co Australia, LLC v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) the New South Wales Court of Appeal recently considered the 'fixtures' exclusion in Australia's Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA).
Power Rental agreed to lease turbines to Forge Group for two years. Shortly after the lease began, Forge Group entered voluntary administration.
In this Australian case, a major creditor of the company in question alleged that it was involved in phoenix activity and offered to fund a public examination of the director provided that the creditor's solicitors would act for the liquidators in that examination. The liquidators refused the offer and, in response, the creditor applied to have the liquidators removed.
In Fielding v The Burnden Group Limited (BGL) the English High Court dismissed an application for the liquidator to be held personally liable for the costs of a successful appeal against the rejection of a proof of debt.
In the UK case of CFL Finance Limited v Rubin and Ors, a creditor had sought to make an individual bankrupt. A creditors' meeting was held. At the meeting, a proposal for an Individual Voluntary Arrangement was approved by the creditor that held the largest portion of debt (and therefore 90.43% of the vote). The other two creditors voted against the proposal.
In this English case, a secured lender (Nationwide) appointed administrators to three companies. However, before appointing, Nationwide had:
The Supreme Court has delivered a judgment providing welcome clarification on the construction and effect of section 123(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the "balance-sheet" insolvency test) and its interaction with section 123(1)(e) of the Act (the "cash flow" insolvency test).
- The 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Court of Appeal provides clarity on payment obligations owed to insolvent counterparties
Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc [2012] EWCA Civ 419
In a keenly anticipated judgment, the Court of Appeal today handed down its verdict in four appeals1 concerning the interpretation of various terms of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement.