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.
In In re KB Toys,1 a recent decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court held that a claim that is disallowable under § 502(d)2 if held by the original claimant is also disallowable in the hands of a purchaser or subsequent transferee. In other words, if a creditor sells or assigns its claim to a claims trader and the creditor later becomes liable on a preference or fraudulent transfer,3 the claim may be disallowed in the hands of the claims trader if the creditor fails to pay the amount it owes to the estate.
Bankruptcy Judge Michael Lynn of the Northern District of Texas recently issued a noteworthy opinion in In re Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P. that addresses two important Chapter 11 confirmation issues. Judge Lynn determined that a plan that artificially impaired a class of claims in order to meet the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) had not been proposed in bad faith and did not violate the requirements of section 1129(a). In his ruling, Judge Lynn also applied the Supreme Court’s cram-down “interest”1 rate teachings in Till v.