The European Commission decided on 5 July 2021 to open an in-depth investigation into the restructuring plan of the airline TAROM notified by Romania in May 2021, as well as into the EUR 190 million aid to support it under the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring undertakings in difficulty.

The Romanian airline TAROM has been in financial difficulties for many years. In February 2020, the Commission approved rescue aid of EUR 36.7 million in favour of the airline in the context of a Romanian notification.

Swissport Belgium, one of the two licensed ground handling service providers at Brussels Airport, was declared bankrupt in June 2020, three months after the airport's operations were interrupted due to measures adopted by the Belgian government to limit the spread of COVID-19. Nearly 1,500 workers lost their jobs.

In order to support these workers, Belgium applied for assistance from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) to help these redundant workers back into employment (especially those with no professional qualifications or with a low level of education).

Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines may escape fines from the Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) notwithstanding the conclusion of an agreement providing for anticompetitive practices according to the Investigation and Prosecution Service of the Authority.

In August 2017, the BCA had opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive practices resulting from the conclusion of a "Commercial Service Agreement" between Thomas Cook Belgium and Brussels Airlines.

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

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?