In Topfer v. Topfer (In re Topfer), Case No. 5-18-ap-00066 RNO (M.D. Pa. July 25, 2018), the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania remanded a three-and half year old divorce proceeding that had been removed to bankruptcy court. But, the remand became more complicated than it needed to be.

The chapter 7 debtor had removed the divorce action immediately after filing for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Shortly after removal, the non-debtor spouse moved to remand the case on mandatory abstention and permissive abstention grounds.

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Arrium Limited [2018] NSWSC 747 in which the Court granted creditors access to documents produced in public examinations.

What happened?

Banks regularly enter into commercial relationships with their customers such as opening new depository accounts.  These relationships are often contractual in nature and seem relatively straightforward until an unexpected incident occurs that causes the relationship to unravel. What then are the duties owed by each party to each another?  The default rule seems to be that the terms and conditions that the parties agreed to at first govern the parties’ actions throughout their banking relationship.

The term “golden shares” is often referred to equity interests held by a specific party—commonly a lender or investor—that authorize such party to block or prevent a corporate entity from filing bankruptcy. Such shares are often negotiated by a party that wants to ensure that its consent is obtained before any bankruptcy is commenced. Without such consent, the party holding the golden shares can seek to dismiss to a corporate bankruptcy filing by based on a lack of corporate authority.

The Bankruptcy Code often instructs a trustee or debtor to perform an act or make an election within a certain time. Sometimes the relevant provisions are intended to benefit a party in interest who is affected by a debtor’s or trustee’s action or election. Unfortunately, some of the provisions that prescribe a trustee or debtor to act fail to provide a remedy to the affected party in interest in the event the trustee or debtor does not act in compliance with the Code.

This week’s TGIF is the second of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

This week’s TGIF considers a priority contest which turned on the construction of section 62 of the PPSA and the reference to a grantor obtaining possession.

What happened?

Bill’s Motorcycles (Bill’s) carried on a business as a motorcycle dealer selling and servicing Kawasaki motorcycles.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in the matter of Bias Boating Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1524 which deals with leave to join already named defendants to a “mothership” proceeding after expiration of the limitation period

Background

The first plaintiff was appointed administrator of the second plaintiff (the relevant company) on 25 August 2014 and became its liquidator on 29 September 2014.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Simpson & Anor v Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] QCA 274 in which the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a disposition of property by a company after the commencement of its winding up was void

BACKGROUND

Mr Simpson was the sole director and shareholder of Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (company). It had operated a successful business until that business was sold in 2009. After the sale, the company did not trade.