In the decision of Allied Express Transport Pty Ltd v Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Administrator Appointed) (No 2) [2013] FCA 477, Exalt Group Pty Ltd (Exalt) sought an adjournment of a winding up application under s440A(2) of the Corporations Act on the basis that the creditors had voted by a majority in favour of a resolution that Exalt enter into a DOCA.

The recent decision of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Premiercorp Pty Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2013] FCA 778 is a good example of the supervisory power played by the Court in the voluntary administration process and shows how a deed of company arrangement (DOCA) may be set aside where it is contrary to the interests of the creditors as a whole, even if the creditors vote in favour of the proposed DOCA.

Facts

In the recent decision of Wentworth Metals Group Pty Ltd v Leigh and Owen (as liquidators of Bonython Metals Group Pty Limited); In the matter of Bonython Metals Group Pty Ltd (In liq) [2013] FCA 349, the Federal Court considered the duties owed by a liquidator when selling assets and the circumstances in which a court should interfere with the decisions of a liquidator.

BACKGROUND

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision Hird, in the matter of Allmine Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2013] FCA 748 involved an application for an extension to the convening period.

Facts

Pursuant to section 459A of the Corporations Act (the Act), a Court may order that an insolvent company be wound up in insolvency.  For such an order to be made, it is conventional practice that the applicant demonstrates insolvency at the date of filing the application and at the date of the hearing of the application.

The recent Federal Court of Australia decision in Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea), in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680, highlights that the Court will be reluctant to grant additional relief to a foreign representative under the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) where the additional relief sought would adversely affect the rights of creditors.

Facts

Facts

The Product People Pty Ltd (TPP) was the manufacturer of various products. The Product People (International) Pty Ltd (TPPI) was a separate company that was licensed to market and sell those products throughout Australia and New Zealand. Box Seat Company Pty Ltd (Box Seat) generated business and managed clients in relation to those products for that region.

On May 29, 2012, the United States Supreme Court resolved a split among the federal courts of appeals on an important bankruptcy issue, agreeing with arguments Morrison & Foerster advanced on behalf of Amalgamated Bank. In a unanimous opinion in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank,¹ the Court held that a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization that provides for a sale of a secured creditor’s collateral free and clear of liens must afford that secured creditor the right to credit bid.

When creditors succeed in obtaining an order for relief in an involuntary Chapter 11 case and the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee, who controls the appeals for those orders? According to an April 28, 2011 order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, the correct answer is the Chapter 11 trustee.

In a decision that is expected to have wide-ranging implications for secured lenders and reorganization plan sales nationwide, the Seventh Circuit’s June 28, 2011 opinion in In re River Road1 marks a jurisdictional split on the contours of credit bidding in bankruptcy. While this decision is squarely at odds with decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits, its holding is in many respects a validation of Judge Ambro’s robust dissent in Philadelphia News,2 and is arguably more aligned with mainstream bankruptcy thinking on credit bidding issues.