Hudson v Signalla [2015] FCAFC 140 confirms that leave of the court is not required under s58(3) Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) to sue a former bankrupt in respect of what was a provable debt in the bankruptcy, after an annulment of the bankruptcy by way of a composition under ss73 and 74 of the Bankrupcty Act.
BACKGROUND
A bankrupt had his bankruptcy annulled by way of presentation of a composition that was accepted by participating creditors (Composition).
In a blow to the Lehman Chapter 11 estates, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held on September 16, 2015 that Intel Corporation’s Loss calculation resulting from a failed transaction under an ISDA Master Agreement was appropriate.1 The decision is significant both because of the dearth of judicial interpretation of the ISDA mechanics regarding the calculation of early termination amounts, and because it affirms the general market understanding that a non-defaulting party has broad discretion in calculating “Loss,” so long as its
This week’s TGIF considers the circumstances in which a resolution passed at a creditor’s meeting will be set aside on the basis that it is contrary to the interests of creditors as a whole.
Background
Victorian Supreme Court confirms that an application to set aside a statutory demand can be served electronically, and the Court’s evaluation of a genuine dispute concerns the establishment of a genuine level of claim, and not the likely result of the claim.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the court appointed an additional liquidator to conduct further investigations alongside the incumbent liquidators in a creditors’ voluntary winding up.
WHAT HAPPENED?
On 18 July 2014, liquidators were appointed to Ambient Advertising Pty Ltd (Ambient) pursuant to the resolution of creditors under section 439C(c) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
BACKGROUND
Administrators were appointed to a company and as a result, the company entered into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA).
After the DOCA had been entered into, a secured creditor who had abstained from voting on the decision of whether the company should enter into the DOCA, purported to appoint an administrator under its security.
The deed administrators sought a declaration from the Court that the second administration should be terminated (amongst other things).
DECISION
Background
In Re CMI Industrial Pty Ltd (in liq); Byrne & Ors v CMI Limited [2015] QSC 96, liquidators sought directions as to whether they were required to pay trading profits made by the receivers to priority creditors under s433 of the Corporations Act.
On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).
In a May 4, 2015 opinion1 , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.
BACKGROUND
A bank loaned over $8,000,000 to Areaworks Pty Ltd for a property development in Victoria. Adrian Liddell (Liddell) provided a guarantee of the debt. Subsequent to default under the facility, the bank sold the secured property and commenced debt recovery proceedings against Liddell for the shortfall of over $700,000 owing to it.
A sequestration order was subsequently made against Liddell upon the presentation by Liddell of a debtor’s petition, with admitted debts in his bankruptcy totalling $3,303,078.