This week’s TGIF considers the case of Kreab Gavin Anderson (Australia) Ltd, in the matter of Kreab Gavin Anderson (Australia) Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1473 and an application for approval of remuneration for work carried out by the applicants as administrators and then liquidators of the plaintiff company, in circumstances where those appointments were subsequently found to be invalid.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
This week’s TGIF considers what the UK decision of Simpkin v The Berkeley Group Holdings PLC [2017] EWHC 1472 means for insolvency practitioners seeking to access potentially privileged documents created by employees of appointee companies.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.
What happened?
On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.
This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.
WHAT HAPPENED?
In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court:
This week’s TGIF considersAlleasing Pty Ltd, in the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd in which the Court considered the potential prejudice to creditors in extending the time for registration of security interests
Background
This week’s TGIF considers Bunnings Group Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] WASC 132, where the Court considered whether the order of registration of caveats determined the priority of competing unregistered charges.
BACKGROUND
Bunnings and Hanson each supplied building materials to Capital Works prior to Capital Works’ liquidation by means of a creditors’ voluntary winding up.
Creation of the charges
This week’s TGIF considers the recent proposals to crackdown on rogue directors and reduce the burden on FEG to pay unpaid workers.
A last resort – but for who?
On 17 May 2017, the Federal Government published a consultation paper inviting submissions on options for law reform to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (‘FEG’) scheme.