In a challenging economic climate, we usually see an increase in leases ending prematurely, either by agreement or by landlords irritating (forfeiting) the lease when they are faced with an insolvent tenant or bad payers. Tenants in these circumstances will often leave behind goods and equipment. The temptation for landlords is just to throw the stuff away so they can re-let but there are restrictions on what a landlord can and can't do with abandoned goods in Scotland.

What should you do if a tenant leaves goods behind at the premises (tenant not insolvent)?

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

'Chapter 11 bankruptcy', the US insolvency regime, often features in the UK headlines. When Lehman Brothers filed under Chapter 11 in 2008, it marked the start of the global financial crisis. Chapter 11 (which refers to part of the US Bankruptcy Code) is a restructuring tool designed to rescue companies. Its closest UK counterpart is Administration, under Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.

In previous blogs, we’ve discussed the temporary changes to the law being brought about by the UK Government’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. The Bill is set to strip Landlords of some of the tools available to recover arrears from their tenants. It will render statutory demands served between 1 March to 30 June 2020 ineffective, while making it near impossible for landlords to liquidate tenants (by winding them up) if they have been financially affected by COVID-19.

In previous blogs, we’ve discussed the temporary changes to the law being brought about by the UK Government’s Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill. The Bill is set to strip Landlords of some of the tools available to recover arrears from their tenants. It will render statutory demands served between 1 March to 30 June 2020 ineffective, while making it near impossible for landlords to liquidate tenants (by winding them up) if they have been financially affected by COVID-19.

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