Victorian Supreme Court confirms that an application to set aside a statutory demand can be served electronically, and the Court’s evaluation of a genuine dispute concerns the establishment of a genuine level of claim, and not the likely result of the claim.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the court appointed an additional liquidator to conduct further investigations alongside the incumbent liquidators in a creditors’ voluntary winding up.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 18 July 2014, liquidators were appointed to Ambient Advertising Pty Ltd (Ambient) pursuant to the resolution of creditors under section 439C(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

Administrators were appointed to a company and as a result, the company entered into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA). 

After the DOCA had been entered into, a secured creditor who had abstained from voting on the decision of whether the company should enter into the DOCA, purported to appoint an administrator under its security. 

The deed administrators sought a declaration from the Court that the second administration should be terminated (amongst other things). 

DECISION

The Bankruptcy Code is federal law. It affords debtors protections - including the automatic stay and debt discharge injunction - that hold creditors at bay.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) is also federal law. It contains limitations on what a debt collector can do when attempting to collect a debt.

Because debts - and more particularly attempts to collect those debts - drive people into bankruptcy, bankruptcy courts are sometimes forced to grapple with questions of how the Bankruptcy Code and FDCPA interact and impact each other.

Sixth Circuit Affirms Bankruptcy Court Order Allowing Amended Exemptions Following Re-Opening of Case

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a debtor is required to file a schedule listing all of the debtor’s property. This includes cash, hard assets such as furniture and cars, as well as intangibles such as causes of action or potential causes of action. The Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to “exempt” certain types of property from the estate, enabling them to retain exempted assets post-bankruptcy.

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.

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 4, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, No. 14-116, a case which deals with issues of finality and appealability of orders in bankruptcy proceedings. In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 debtor’s proposed repayment plan is not a final order and thus is not immediately appealable.

BACKGROUND