This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Erskine as liquidator of North Shore Property Developments Pty Ltd (in liq) v 72-74 Gordon Crescent Lane Cove Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 62, where a determination was upheld that Courts should not go behind a deed of release entered into by a liquidator without a valid basis for doing so.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

Se comenta y se refuta una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Supremo que exige que estos créditos por intereses estén en el concurso especialmente comunicados, y que de otra forma no podrían ser pagados con el producto de ejecución.

1. Los hechos

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision which validated dispositions of property made by a company after the winding up began.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 8 May 2017, Bond J ordered that a coal exploration company (the Company) be wound up on just and equitable grounds following a shareholder oppression claim. So as to avoid the consequences of a liquidation, his Honour immediately stayed that order for a period of 7 days to enable the warring parties a final chance to resolve their differences.

An unresolved question - and one that generates disparate opinions - is addressed in this paper concerning whether and how conditional or litigating creditors should be acknowledged in terms of quorum and voting under the Fourth Additional Provision of the Insolvency Act.

Cuestión no resuelta —y generadora de dispares opiniones—, se afronta en esta nota cómo han de ser, o no, reconocidos en el quorum y en el voto de la disposición adicional cuarta de la Ley Concursal los acreedores condicionales y los litigiosos.

Concedida una subvención pública, fue posteriormente anulada en vía administrativa, con resolución que obligaba a devolver su importe. Entretanto el beneficiario de la subvención había sido declarado en concurso. Las dos instancias judiciales entendieron que la deuda de restitución es una deuda de la masa, por haber tenido lugar su devengo después de la declaración de concurso.

Se trata de un sumario y elocuentememo firmado por dos juristas de Kirkland & Ellis LLP, London, y publicado enInternational Corporate Rescue, vol. 15, issue 6, 2018, que resumo en lo que importa. Siempre suponiendo un hard Brexit. (1) Los tribunales de UK no reconocerán —salvo implementación por UK de la Ley Modelo de UNCITRAL— procedimientos de insolvencia extranjeros si afectan a titulares de créditos sometidos a Derecho inglés que disienten del acuerdo y no estuvieron presentes en el procedimiento extranjero.