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

A recent case in the NSW Court of Appeal clarifies the purpose, and limits, of a public examination summons

The PAS Group decision reaffirms the principle that rent incurred during the administration period takes priority in the winding-up payment waterfall

Antqip Hire highlights the importance of drafting a DOCA carefully, and properly communicating to creditors the commercial risks

The case of Antqip Hire was brought by the liquidators of two related entities (Antqip Pty Limited and Antqip Hire Pty Limited).

Orders were sought determining:

A voluntary administrator is often appointed by the company. The directors have a role in selecting the administrator; often the referral will come through one of the company’s advisers, such as the accountant or lawyer.

National Rugby League (NRL) was successful in setting aside a summons for public examination obtained by the liquidator of Newheadspace Pty Limited (Newheadspace). The Court also awarded NRL its costs. The Court found that the creditors’ voluntary winding-up of Newheadspace was an abuse of process, and that the summonses were obtained for an improper purpose.

The Supreme Court held that a statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for purposes of determining the application of the exception to discharge set forth in Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling, 2018 WL 2465174 (June 4, 2018).

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Mgmt. Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by and to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside of the scope of the § 546(e) safe harbor even if they are made through financial institutions or other covered entities. The Supreme Court’s decision resolves a circuit split over how the § 546(e) safe harbor applies to transactions involving conduit entities and could impact future disputes involving safe harbors under the Bankruptcy Code.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S.Ct. 883 (2018), held that transfers made by or to entities that are not “financial institutions” or other covered entities fall outside the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e)’s “safe harbor” from a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code, even if those transfers are made through financial institutions or other covered entities.

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that a Chapter 11 debtor could not avoid the payment of default interest under a promissory note as a condition to curing and reinstating such promissory note under a Chapter 11 plan. In Pacifica L 51 LLC v. New Investments Inc. (In re New Investments, Inc.), 840 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that its prior rule of allowing a curing debtor to avoid a contractual post-default interest rate in a loan agreement—as decided in Great Western Bank & Trust v.