In Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton, the High Court of Australia considered the Bankruptcy Court's discretion, under s52 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), to go behind a judgment to satisfy itself that a debt is truly owing before making a sequestration order against a debtor.
The English Court of Appeal has recently outlined the methodology for calculating interest when a surplus remains following full payment of debts by a company in administration.
The English High Court in Bank and Clients Plc v King and Brown considered guarantor liability in circumstances where the guarantors, Messrs King and Brown, alleged representations had been made by the Bank that would relieve them of their liability.
Numerous changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Rules”) take effect on December 1, 2017. The changes significantly impact the administration of consumer bankruptcy cases, and Chapter 13 cases in particular.
Some of the most significant changes to affect creditors, explained in more detail below, include:
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan recently issued an opinion in a bankruptcy case involving a husband and wife who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.
Two proposed bills are working their way through the Michigan Legislature that would significantly impact state law pertaining to commercial real estate receiverships.
Specifically, House Bills 4470 and 4471 were approved by the Michigan House of Representatives in early November 2017 and have been sent to the State Senate for consideration.
There is nothing quite like a big sale to a new customer - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.
However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.
Ranolf Company Limited (Ranolf) was created for the sole purpose of acting as a trustee of the Ranolf Trust (Trust). This was the only activity Ranolf performed and its only asset was its right of recourse to the Trust assets under indemnity.
Ranolf was put into liquidation in 2014. Earlier this year, Ranolf brought this proceeding in the High Court seeking various orders to enable it to recourse to the Trust property to meet the claims of its creditors and its liquidators' costs.
In McCollum v Thompson, the Court of Appeal partly quashed the orders of the High Court (previously reported in our March 2016 insolvency update).
The director and shareholders of Rayland Investment Ltd (in liq) (the Company) applied to terminate the Company's liquidation. The Court found it appropriate to make that order. At issue, however, was the remuneration claimed by Mr Norrie, the Company's liquidator, which the Court reduced from $39,128 to $15,559.
Mr Norrie was not entitled to remuneration for unnecessary preliminary steps such as consenting to appointment by affidavit and carrying out property searches.