In the matter of Bleecker Property Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2023] NSWSC 1071, appears to be the first published case that considers the question of whether an order can be made under section 588FF(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by way of default judgment against one defendant where there are multiple defendants in the proceedings.
Key takeaways
The Royal Court has recently handed down the final decision in the matter of Eagle Holdings Limited (in compulsory liquidation).[1] In this decision, the Royal Court of Guernsey provided guidance and assistance to the joint liquidators regarding a distribution of surplus funds.
This week’s TGIF considers Hundy (liquidator), in the matter of 3 Property Group 13 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] FCA 1216, in which the Federal Court of Australia granted leave under rule 2.13(1) of the Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) (FCCR) for intervening parties to be h
To proceed against a debtor's personal property in Guernsey, customary law remedies are used. These start with the arrest of a debtor's goods and enable all creditors to share in the proceeds in the event that the monies owed are greater than the debtor's assets.
In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.
In order to proceed against a debtor's personal property in Guernsey, customary law remedies are used which start with the arrest of a debtor's goods but which allow all creditors to share in the proceeds in the event that the monies owed are greater than the debtor's assets.
Arrêts
Once judgment is obtained against a debtor, the 'arresting creditor', will either:
Saisie (meaning "to seize") is a court driven, Guernsey customary law process, governed by the Saisie Procedure (Simplification) (Bailiwick) Order, 1952. It is a three stage post judgment process which enables a creditor to enforce their rights against the debtor's realty in Guernsey.
In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina