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
On 23 October 2024, Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon of the Court of First Instance in the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR granted recognition and assistance to Chan Ho Yin (also known as Michael Chan) (“Mr Chan“) of Kroll (HK) Ltd and Elaine Hanrahan (“Ms Hanrahan“), the joint official liquidators of Bull’s-Eye Limited (“Bull’s-Eye”) following a letter of request issued by the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court.
Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
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
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
In the case of Re China Properties Group Limited (in Liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 2346, the Hong Kong Court has shown its commitment to providing assistance to local liquidators appointed by it by asserting in personam jurisdiction over a Hong Kong based director of a company incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction.
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
The Quincecare duty has become a popular tool for companies (or their liquidators) to claim against banks for funds misappropriated on wrongful payment instructions. It requires a bank to refrain from executing a payment order if and for so long as it was put on inquiry by having reasonable grounds for believing that the order was an attempt to misappropriate funds.
Due to the recent challenging economic environment, the law’s treatment of creditors’ interests in a restructuring or insolvency has been a hot topic. From a creditor’s perspective, its objective will be straightforward: to maximize its recovery as soon as possible when its interests are put at risk by financial challenges facing the debtor. From a shareholder’s perspective, its agenda will generally be quite different: to achieve certainty and stability through a debt restructuring so that the company can stay afloat and carry on business without the risk of a winding up order.
With a marked increase in large-scale cross-border insolvency and restructuring proceedings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere, there is a greater focus on principles of comity and co-operation between courts and collaboration between officeholders.