This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.
Key takeaways
In Davis-Jacenko v Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 702, McGrath J delivered an extempore decision, appointing provisional liquidators in respect of Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited (theCompany). His Honour stated that it was “a paradigm case” for the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.
Key Takeaways
引言
在香港、中国内地和台湾等司法管辖区运营的家族企业，通常会把企业的实益拥有权和控制权置于英属维尔京群岛（下称“BVI”）注册成立的公司股东名下。受惠于 BVI 公司隐私法的相关优势及其对高净值个人和家族的特殊吸引力，整个企业的实益拥有权甚至能位于国际业务结构顶端的 BVI 控股公司（下称“BVI 控股公司”）发行的股份。
从遗产规划的角度来看，为了确保企业由家族或高净值个人保留控制，企业的融资方式通常是通过股东或几个主要股东向企业提供贷款。如果企业多年来的融资方式一直是 BVI 控股公司获提供的贷款，那么该 BVI 公司欠下的债务总额很有可能相当庞大。一旦贷款人去世便会产生一系列问题，例如死者能否追讨 BVI 公司欠下的债务、追讨申请的正确诉讼地等。
本文将厘清上述部分问题，并分享康德明对于已故个人代表在 BVI 追讨债务的一些指引。
When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.
Key takeaways
This article originally appeared in Vol. 52 of Kentucky Trucker, a publication of the Kentucky Trucking Association.
In October 2022, the Privy Council delivered its judgment in the Z Trust case of Equity Trust (Jersey) Ltd (Respondent) v Halabi (in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of the late Mdam Intisar Nouri) (Jersey)which was consolidated with ITG Ltd and others (Respondents) v Fort Trustees Ltd and another (Appellants) (Guernsey).The Privy Council considered the nature and scope of the right of a former trustee to recover from or be indemnified out of assets of an insolvent trust in respect of liabilities and other expenditures proper
Chapter 11 Subchapter V cases are a relatively new animal in the bankruptcy world. Subchapter V was added to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in February 2020 to provide an efficient and cost-effective alternative process for small businesses wishing to organize under Chapter 11.
Unlike regular Chapter 11 business reorganizations, Subchapter V provides for the appointment of a trustee. However, Subchapter V provides little detail about the role of these trustees. This article discusses how one court dealt with this ambiguity.
Background
The Fifth Circuit recently weighed in on the hotly contested issue of whether the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the bankruptcy court has controlling jurisdiction when it comes to the question of a bankruptcy debtor’s ability to reject contracts regulated by FERC. FERC-regulated contracts include electricity power purchase contracts, as well as transportation services agreements involving oil and gas.
In the bankruptcy world, not all claims are created equal. Rather, certain special categories of claims have priority status and are not only paid ahead of other claims, but are also often paid in full. One such category of claims is found in Bankruptcy Code § 503(b)(9), which grants priority claim status for goods which were sold in the ordinary course of business and received by a debtor within the 20-day window leading up to the bankruptcy filing. The code section is very clear, however.