Bankruptcy litigation can stem well beyond the primary bankruptcy proceedings. Continued litigation may be born out of disputes between bankrupts, bankruptcy trustees and other interested parties in respect of methods of asset liquidation.

In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.

What happened?

In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.

Recent changes to the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) have simplified the process for mortgagees exercising power of sale and do away with the need for a Court order.

Previously, a mortgagee was required to apply to a Court for a vesting order allowing it to exercise power of sale and to dispense with the requirement to give a Notice of Exercise of Power of Sale to the mortgagor.

In Yeo, in the matter of Ready Kit Cabinets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation,[1] the Court considered whether payments made to the Deputy Commission of Taxation (DCT) by a director of the company, required under a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) were recoverable as unfair preferences.

In ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, the court considered whether a “legal phoenix” arrangement entered into after receiving professional advice was in fact a voidable transaction.

The facts

Intelara Pty Ltd (OldCo) operated an engineering consultancy business and after experiencing financial difficulties in 2014 sought professional advice concerning the potential restructure of the company.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]