Highlights

The court’s power to overturn the decisions of insolvency practitioners in a company’s external administration was highlighted in the recent case of Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (Proof of Debt) [2021] FCA 1061 (Tuscan).

In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.

Voluntary administration is Australia’s primary business rescue regime. This article is Part 2 of a two-part series. In this article, we highlight the impact of voluntary administration on various stakeholders and the potential outcomes for a company in voluntary administration. It is not intended to be used as an exhaustive guide to Australia’s voluntary administration regime and its many nuances.

Voluntary administration is Australia’s primary business rescue regime. This article is Part 1 of a two-part series. This article provides an introductory overview of voluntary administration in Australia, explaining what it is, why entities might enter it and its processes. It is not intended to be used as an exhaustive guide to Australia’s voluntary administration regime and its many nuances.

In Australia, public companies are required to have at least three directors (s 201A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act)). However, in exceptional circumstances, a public company might find itself with fewer than three directors – for example, where the other board directors resign because of some disagreement.

The peak indebtedness rule employed by liquidators to maximise recovery of unfair preference claims is abolished

Should a claim for appraisal rights brought by a former shareholder of a Chapter 11 debtor be subordinated under Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code? According to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the answer is yes. See In re: RTI Holding Co., LLC, No. 20-12456, 2021 WL 3409802 (Bankr. D. Del. Aug. 4, 2021).

Background

Trillions of dollars of securities are issued on the strength of bankruptcy remoteness and special purpose entities (“SPVs”) intended to be bankruptcy remote. These transactions generally involve hundreds of millions of dollars and investors’ expectations that the SPVs will not be dragged into a potential bankruptcy filing of their non-SPV affiliates.

In a recent opinion, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland dealt with a conflict between the strong presumption in favor of enforcing arbitration agreements and the Bankruptcy Code’s emphasis on centralization of claims. Based on an analysis of the two statutory schemes and their underlying policies and concerns, the Court decided to lift the automatic stay to allow the prepetition arbitration proceeding to go forward with respect to non-core claims.

Background