The issue
A "no action" clause will appear in almost all English law-governed bond trust deeds.
A no action clause provides that a bondholder (or anyone entitled to payments on the bonds) cannot, initially, proceed directly against the issuer. Instead, the right to bring a cause of action resides with the trustee and it is only if the trustee, having become bound to take action, fails to do so within a reasonable time (with the failure continuing) that a bondholder can then itself proceed directly against the issuer.
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).
Key Takeaways
This week’s TGIF considers an application to the Federal Court for the private hearing of a public examination where separate criminal proceedings were also on foot.
Key takeaways
This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.
Key takeaways
Introduction
Towards the end of 2020, while businesses were reeling from the challenges of grappling with a global pandemic, the end of the Brexit transition period and LIBOR transition, the Law Commission published a paper analysing the current law underlying intermediated securities - Intermediated securities: who owns your shares? A Scoping Paper.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 of 15 July 2020 provided much needed clarity on the scope of the rule against “reflective loss”.
In Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB v Conway & another [2019] UKPC 36, the Privy Council upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands that the appellant bank, SEB, was required to repay redemption payments held to be preferences notwithstanding that it had received the funds in the capacity of nominee, and had already distributed the funds to the beneficiaries without any ability to recover them.
Facts
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?
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