Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
In Re Brew Still Pty Ltd (admin apptd)[2023] NSWSC 256, Black J of the New South Wales Supreme Court declined an application for an adjournment of one month brought by the voluntary administrator appointed to Brew Still Pty Ltd three days prior to the hearing of the winding up application.
The decisions in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 and Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 have been viewed as conflicting for liquidators. In this week’s TGIF, we examine these proceedings and why the decisions benefit both liquidators and creditors.
Key takeaways
In Lawrence, Ozifin Tech Pty Ltd (in liq) v AGM Markets Pty Ltd (in liq)[2022] FCA 1478, liquidators of multiple companies were successful in obtaining the declarations and directions they sought regarding the distribution of statutory trust funds, and obtaining payment of their fees from trust assets.
In the recent decision of Banerjee (Liquidator), in the matter of Eastside Formwork Pty Ltd (in liq) v Stojic [2022] FCA 1315, a liquidator succeeded in obtaining orders for a warrant to search for and seize books and records which had been concealed from the liquidator. The warrant was directed at the person deemed the ‘guiding mind and will’ of the company in liquidation, who had repeatedly ‘fobbed off’ requests for the production of all records of the company.
Key takeaways
In a recent decision handed down in Gold Valley Iron Pty Ltd (in liq) v OPS Screening & Crushing Equipment Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 134, Liquidators succeeded in establishing an ‘equipment lease with an option to purchase’ clause as being a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 which needed to be registered by the owner.
Key takeaways
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background