This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales In the matter of Gearhouse BSI Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 98. In this case, one of the joint venture parties obtained an order to wind up the joint venture on the basis that the underlying purpose of the business had failed.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers an application to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds. The Court declined to make the order, finding the suggested deadlock had an air of artificiality and the application was infused with self-interest.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Nikitins v EncoreFX (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 27, where the Federal Court found that funds paid into a holding account for the provision of foreign exchange services were held on trust and were not property of the liquidation.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court which determined an application to extend the time to bring voidable transaction claims, where the potential defendants were themselves insolvent, deregistered or bankrupt and the prospect of returns from the proceedings unclear.

Key takeaways

We have blogged previously about section 546(e), the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain transfers otherwise subject to avoidance as preferences or fraudulent transfers. See 11 U.S.C. § 546(e). Among the transfers protected by the section 546(e) safe harbor are transfers by or to a “financial participant” made “in connection with a securities contract.” Id.

The Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. These avoidance powers are subject to certain limitations, including a safe harbor in section 546(e) exempting certain transfers. Among other things, section 546(e) bars avoidance of a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . .

Last February, we blogged about the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Energy Future Holdings Corp, No. 19-1430, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4947 (Feb. 18, 2020). The Third Circuit approved a process for resolving asbestos claims in which a bar date was imposed on filing the claims, but late claimants who were unaware of their asbestos claims would be allowed to have the bar date excused through Bankruptcy Rule 3003(c)(3). (A bar date is a date set by the court by which all claims against the debtor must be filed.

Section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, when a transfer is avoided under one of several other sections of the Code, a trustee may recover “the property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property” from “the initial transferee of such transfer,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made,” or “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.” 11 U.S.C. § 550(a).

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Federal Court ordered payments made while a DOCA was in force, to which the deed administrators were signatories, were recoverable as unfair preferences.

Key Takeaways