Fulltext Search
Delivery Not Included - what the High Court of Australia’s decision in the ‘Willis’ case means

The High Court of Australia’s decision in Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (as Owner Trustee) & Anor v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) & Ors (the “Willis” case).

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in the Willis case.

Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Due diligence, High Court of Australia
Top Court Denies Leave to Appeal in Contested Application for a Reverse Vesting Order in Nemaska Restructuring Proceedings

The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has denied leave to appeal in the proceedings of Nemaska Lithium Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, Nemaska) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). In November 2020, the Québec Court of Appeal (QCA) dismissed leave applications from the decision of the Superior Court of Québec (SCQ). In this decision, the SCQ granted, for the first time after a contested hearing, a “reverse vesting order” (RVO).

Canada, Quebec, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Debt restructuring, Supreme Court of Canada
Davies Restructuring Review 2021: Issue 1

Although 2020 may be behind us, the economic conditions and lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic still linger. With the emerging picture for Canada in 2021 looking to largely resemble that of 2020, many are wondering how long struggling businesses and their creditors can hold their breath while waiting for improved cash flows and customer demand.

Canada, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Coronavirus
Virgin Australia Group administrators’ Lien: The key to super priority

Background

Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Coronavirus, Virgin Group
Virgin v Wells Fargo: the Full Federal Court adopts a different interpretation of an insolvency administrator’s obligation to “give possession” under the Cape Town Convention

Following our previous alert here on Justice Middleton’s decision in Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (trustee) v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed),[1] the administra

Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Virgin Group, Federal Court of Australia
Wells Fargo v Virgin: the first clarification on an insolvency administrator’s obligation to “give possession” under the Cape Town Convention

On 14 May 2015, Australia acceded to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment (“Cape Town Convention”) and the Protocol to the Cape Town Convention (“Cape Town Protocol”). In particular, for insolvency related proceedings, Australia adopted what is known as “Alternative A” in aviation industry speak. The Cape Town Convention became effective as Australian law on 1 September 2015 and applies to the relevant aviation leasing and financing transitions entered into after that date.

Australia, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, King & Wood Mallesons, Virgin Group
Aviation Working Group's review of the Cape Town Convention Closing Opinion

In January 2018, the Aviation Working Group (“AWG”)1 as part of its review of closing opinion practice, released a revised Form of Cape Town Convention Closing Opinion. The aim of the review was to provide further guidance and consistency in the approach legal practitioners adopt in respect of Cape Town and the State of Registry Jurisdiction.

The AWG was founded in 1994, with stated aims of contributing to the development and acceptance of policies and laws that:

  • facilitate advanced international aviation financing and leasing, and

Australia, Asset Finance, Aviation, Insolvency & Restructuring, King & Wood Mallesons
Whirlpool Corporation v. HHGreg, Inc. (In re HHGregg, Inc.)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Debtor, United States bankruptcy court
In re Dickson

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

USA, Kentucky, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC
Bankruptcy opinions within a day or two of issuance from the Western and Eastern Districts of Kentucky, the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the Sixth and Seventh Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Bankruptcy, Supreme Court of the United States, United States bankruptcy court, Sixth Circuit, Seventh Circuit