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
In the decision of Re Arcabi Pty Ltd (Receivers & Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2014] WASC 310 the court considered:
- the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) to goods being held on a bailment or consignment basis by a company in receivership and liquidation; and
- the receivers’ rights to be indemnified for costs and expenses related to investigating and protecting the property of third parties.
What is the significance?
The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.
Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.
The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).