The special purpose liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq) have been successful in their application in the Supreme Court of Queensland for freezing orders against Mr Clive Palmer and several companies which he controls.[1]

Background

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (“the Committee”) has endorsed the passing of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 (“the Bill”) in its report dated 21 March 2018.[1]

In the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).

What does this mean for you?

On 28 March 2017, the Turnbull Government released draft legislation which would implement wide-ranging reforms to Australia’s corporate restructuring laws. The draft legislation focuses on reforms to the insolvent trading prohibition (Safe Harbour) and introducing a new stay on enforcing “ipso facto” clauses during certain restructuring procedures (Ipso Facto).

The High Court this afternoon unanimously dismissed Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson's challenge to the constitutional validity of section 596A of the Corporations Act.

This means that a liquidator's power to publicly examine and compel the production of documents remains intact and removes any doubt about the powers of liquidators under section 596A of the Corporations Act.

Arguments made by Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson

On March 15, 2010 Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (the “Debtors”) filed a motion (the “Motion”) with the Bankruptcy Court overseeing the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases (the “Court”) seeking authorization to establish certain claims and alternative dispute resolution procedures designed to expedite the process of reconciling claims filed against the Debtors’ estates.

The procedures, set forth in detail in an exhibit to the proposed order filed with the Motion, are summarized as follows:

In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) granted protection over the U.S. assets of a Cayman Islands exempted company in liquidation. See Revised Order Recognizing Foreign Proceeding (the “Order”), In re Saad Investments Finance Company (No.5) Limited (“SIFCO5”), Case No. 09-13985 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Dec. 17, 2009) (Docket No. 47). The company, SIFCO5, is subject to official liquidation proceedings in the Cayman Islands, which the Bankruptcy Court found was eligible for relief under chapter 15 of the U.S.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on Nov. 5, 2009, that a creditor was entitled to its post-bankruptcy legal fees incurred on a pre-bankruptcy indemnity agreement. Ogle v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md., __F.3d __, No. 09-0691-bk, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 24329 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2009). Affirming the lower courts, the Second Circuit explained that the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “interposes no bar . . . to recovery.” Id. at *8-9 (citing Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S.

On Nov. 10, 2009, a Pennsylvania district court held that secured creditors do not have an absolute right to credit bid1 their debt under the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) in an asset sale conducted pursuant to a “cramdown” plan of reorganization that proposes to provide the secured creditors with the “indubitable equivalent” of their claims. In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Civil Action 09-00178 at 57 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2009). This decision is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Facts

A Florida bankruptcy court, on Oct. 13, 2009, issued a 182-page decision after a 13-day trial, among other things, avoiding on fraudulent transfer grounds (a) secured subsidiary guarantees of $500 million and (b) $420 million pre-bankruptcy payments. In re Tousa, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-10928; Adv. P. 08-1435 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009). The decision is on appeal to the district court.  

Relevance