In a decision last month, DCF Capital, LLC v. US Shale Solutions, LLC (Sup. Ct. NY Co. Jan. 24, 2017), a New York State Supreme Court justice held that a noteholder that had properly accelerated indenture debt may sue to collect that debt notwithstanding the operation of a standard no-action clause. This holding, while appealing from a noteholder perspective, may not be compelled by Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act on which it rests and is contrary to some prior case law.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers the application of the principle in Re Universal Distributing and whether liquidators may claim an equitable lien to recover their costs and expenses, even if no assets are realised and no fund exists.

Background

In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Primary Securities Ltd v Willmott Forests Limited, liquidators had been appointed to an insolvent company which was the responsible entity of a managed investment forestry scheme.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of ACN 151 726 224 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2016] NSWSC 1801, where the Court dismissed a creditor’s application to remove liquidators who had refused to conduct public examinations of a director.

What happened?

On 18 November 2015, the District Court of New South Wales entered judgment against Ridley Capital Holdings Pty Limited (the Company) in the amount of $660,862.62.

In a recent decision in the Southern District of New York, the court addressed a challenge to a secured-for-unsecured debt exchange offer that raised and answered a host of questions on the potential vulnerability of offers of this type. In Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources (SDNY December 6, 2016), the court dealt with standing to pursue a challenge; TIA §316(b) after Marblegate and MeehanCombs/Caesars; the no-action clause and allegations of conflict of interest of the trustee; the remedies clause; and discrimination against non-QIBs.

This week’s TGIF considers a NSW Court of Appeal decision which confirms that liquidators who bring a claim for preference payments within the limitation period may amend that claim to capture additional transactions otherwise subject to a statutory bar.

Background

Sydney Recycling Park (SRP) provided “tipping services” to Cardinal Group (Cardinal), who were in the business of “waste management”. Cardinal ran into some financial difficulties and on 1 February 2012, it was placed into liquidation.

This week’s TGIF considers Tai-Soo Suk v Hanjin Shopping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404 in which the Court was required to determine the scope of a stay arising under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

BACKGROUND

A Korean shipping company was subject to ‘rehabilitation’ proceedings in Korea. Rehabilitation proceedings seek to ‘rehabilitate’ insolvent debtors by restructuring their debt pursuant to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Rehabilitation Court.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of Hastie Group Ltd (in liq) v Moore [2016] NSWCA 305 in which the Court held that privilege attached to an expert report prepared for the purpose of obtaining litigation funding.

WHAT HAPPENED?

This week’s TGIF considers Re Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) in which the Court held that the liquidators had standing to seek a declaration against an insurer arising from the assignment of rights under a policy.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The previous High Court decision

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act, which prohibits action that would deprive individual bondholders of the right to receive principal and interest, has taken center stage of late with rulings on the scope of its applicability. But another provision of Section 316 of the TIA drives in the opposite direction, and is equally fundamental to the architecture of indenture debt as commonly issued in this country. Section 316(a)(1) prescribes the default rule that a majority of bondholders have the power to direct the remedial actions of the trustee.

This week’s TGIF considers State of Victoria v Goulburn Administration Services (In Liquidation) and Ors [2016] VSC 654, in which Special Purpose Liquidators were appointed despite a potential conflict arising from their firm having conducted compliance audits of the companies.

Background