The recently published report on the evaluation of the ESUG, the German law to facilitate the restructuring of companies, states that the changes introduced by the ESUG have been received positively overall, but that there is still room for improvement in many areas. Should the EU Restructuring Directive actually be adopted at the beginning of 2019, the legislator would have the opportunity to improve the ESUG legislation and implement the EU requirements for pre-insolvency restructuring proceedings in one bill.
Der frisch veröffentliche Bericht zur Evaluation des ESUG stellt fest, dass die durch das ESUG eingeführten Änderungen insgesamt positiv aufgenommen worden sind, aber an vielen Stellen noch Verbesserungsbedarf besteht. Sollte tatsächlich Anfang 2019 die EU-Restrukturierungsrichtlinie verabschiedet werden, hätte der Gesetzgeber die Möglichkeit in einem (großen) Wurf, die ESUG Regelungen zu verbessern und die Anforderungen der EU an ein vorinsolvenzliches Sanierungsverfahren umzusetzen.
This week’s TGIF article looks at the decision of Hooke v Bux Global Ltd (No 6) [2018] FCA 1545, where Bux Global Ltd (Bux Global) was wound up on just and equitable grounds and the perceived independence of a director-appointed liquidator was questioned.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?
How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?
In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of MJM(WA) Enterprises Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 944, where the Court approved a liquidator’s remuneration but deferred decisions about trust distributions until after the Re Amerind litigation finishes.
What happened?
The company operated two barbershops in Perth as trustee for a family trust before liquidators were appointed in May 2017.