Family law processes cannot be used to defraud creditors. In Re ZH International Pty Ltd (in liq), the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that transfers of property from a company to the directors and shareholders of that company as part of family law proceedings were voidable transactions under section 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) where the company was not a party to the orders and the orders did not require the company to make the transfers.
Background
In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.
A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the power to “establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” While Congress has general authority to establish a bankruptcy system, bankruptcy laws must be “uniform.” But not every aspect of the bankruptcy system is the same across every judicial district.
InAustralian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (no 9) [2021] FCA 1306 the Administrators brought an interlocutory application seeking remuneration orders pursuant to section 60-10(1)(c) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPSC) for the administration of the second defendant. The application was opposed by the Liquidators of the second defendant.
In Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2),[1] the NSW Supreme Court handed down judgment in two proceedings (which were heard together) arising from the failure of Arrium and its broader corporate group.
The Bankruptcy Code grants the power to avoid certain transactions to a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possession. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547–48. Is there a general requirement that these avoidance powers only be used when doing so would benefit creditors? In a recent decision, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico addressed this question, concluding, in the face of a split of authority, that there was such a requirement.
Section 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (the IPS) confers on Courts wide powers to adjust rights related to companies in external administration. Here, the administrators of a mining group obtained orders approving their entry into a deed to fund the ongoing operation of the group pending sale and limiting their liability under the deed to the company’s assets. The Court accepted the administrators’ evidence that this funding was urgently required to continue the Group’s operations pending a sale, the prospects of which were thereby maximised.
A creditor in bankruptcy must normally file a proof of claim by a certain specified time, known as the bar date, or have its claim be barred.
On 10 May 2021 in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq)(receivers and managers apptd)[i] the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia abolished the application of the Peak Indebtedness Rule to a running account ‘single transaction’ under section 588FA(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) in unfair p