A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.

A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.

Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation

Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.

Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.

In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.

Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?

Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:

On Nov. 28, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in In re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. issued a groundbreaking decision under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides the mechanics for U.S. bankruptcy courts to deal with cross-border insolvency proceedings. Although deference to judgments of foreign courts is the norm under Chapter 15, in this instance the Fifth Circuit refused to enforce a court-approved Mexican plan of reorganization on the ground that it contained non-consensual non-debtor releases of noteholders’ claims against the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently ruled that a perpetual, royalty-free, and exclusive trademark licensing agreement qualified as an executory contract subject to assumption or rejection under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Eighth Circuit’s ruling is seemingly at odds with a 2010 decision by the Third Circuit which found an extremely similar licensing agreement to be non-executory.  These decisions may signal a circuit split on the issue, and in any event, create uncertainty for licensees who have acquired perpetual licenses in connection

On August 28, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas vacated a series of bankruptcy court rulings that had blocked Vitro SAB’s noteholders from filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against Vitro’s non-debtor subsidiary guarantors.  In a decision authored by Chief Judge Sidney A.

Judge Martin Glenn of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently ruled that Borders gift card holders did not qualify as “known creditors.” The Court concluded that the gift card holders were entitled only to publication notice rather than actual notice of the bar date for filing bankruptcy claims in Borders’ chapter 11 case.

On July 10, 2012, Judge James M. Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District  of New York ruled that so-called “soft dollar” claims do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act.  The decision represents the first time that any court has been asked to determine the status of “soft dollar” claims under SIPA.  In re Lehman Brothers Inc., No. 08-01420, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3103 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2012).

Background

On June 13, 2012, Judge Harlin D. Hale of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas refused to enforce provisions of a Mexican plan of reorganization that purported to extinguish guarantees by the debtor’s non-debtor subsidiaries.  In refusing to enforce the non-debtor release, Judge Hale held both that the release of non-debtor guarantors was contrary to United States public policy and that the release did not merit enforcement under the specific criteria of chapter 15 for granting relief to a foreign debtor.