Background
In Re CMI Industrial Pty Ltd (in liq); Byrne & Ors v CMI Limited [2015] QSC 96, liquidators sought directions as to whether they were required to pay trading profits made by the receivers to priority creditors under s433 of the Corporations Act.
On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
BACKGROUND
A bank loaned over $8,000,000 to Areaworks Pty Ltd for a property development in Victoria. Adrian Liddell (Liddell) provided a guarantee of the debt. Subsequent to default under the facility, the bank sold the secured property and commenced debt recovery proceedings against Liddell for the shortfall of over $700,000 owing to it.
A sequestration order was subsequently made against Liddell upon the presentation by Liddell of a debtor’s petition, with admitted debts in his bankruptcy totalling $3,303,078.
BACKGROUND
Westnet concerned an application under section 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 by a liquidator in a members’ voluntary winding-up, involving 10 related companies.
In underlying facts described by the Court as “very odd”, the court was asked to determine two questions:
BACKGROUND
A fruit and vegetable supplier supplied the defendants’ company with fruit and vegetables over a number of years. The defendants, who were brothers, were the directors of the company to whom the fruit and vegetables were supplied.
The company fell behind in its payments to the fruit and vegetable supplier. A guarantee was provided by the brothers in order to secure the payment of debts owed by their company and ensure further supply.
On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
BACKGROUND
Stephanie Roebuck As Executor Of The Deceased Estate Of Suzanne Florence Bulwinkel (Roebuck) served Bulwinkel Enterprises Pty Ltd (Bulwinkel) with a statutory demand for the payment of $990,377.63 monies owing in connection with an unpaid trust distribution and loan between the parties.
In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court: