Nighthawk Production LLC and Oilquest USA LLC—affiliates of Nighthawk Royalties LLC, et al. (Lead Case No. 18-10989)—have filed petitions for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Cole Schotz’s coverage of Nighthawk’s filing can be found here.
The Rockport Company, LLC, along with nine (9) affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11145). Rockport, based in West Newton, MA, is a designer, distributor and retailer of comfort footwear in more than fifty (50) markets worldwide.
Arecont Vision Holdings, LLC, along with two affiliates and subsidiaries, has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Lead Case No. 18-11142). Arecont, based in Glendale, CA, is a developer and manufacturer of megapixel camera technology for security and surveillance use.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Specialist Australian Security Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] VSC 199 in which the Court considered the priority of administrators' right to an indemnity out of company property.
Background
This week’s TGIF considers Gogetta Equipment Funding Pty Ltd v Mark & Liz Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 91, which examined a priority contest between competing equitable interests in property.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF considers the case ofIn the matter of Bean and Sprout Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 351, an application seeking a declaration as to the validity of the appointment of a voluntary administrator.
What happened?
On 7 December 2018, Mr Kong Yao Chin (Chin) was purportedly appointed as the voluntary administrator of Bean and Sprout Pty Ltd (Company) by a resolution of the Company.
This week’s TGIF is the second of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.
This week’s TGIF is the first of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.
This first part looks closely at what the Court of Appeal did – and did not – decide in relation to how receivers and liquidators should deal with property recovered pursuant to an insolvent corporate trustee’s right of indemnity.
Short Summary
This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.
WHAT HAPPENED?
In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court: