When a company goes into liquidation, creditors often wonder whether they will recover their debts. One available option to achieve this is funding legal action to help the liquidator recover assets.
Singapore's insolvency legislation allows creditors who fund liquidators' recovery actions to have priority over other creditors in the distribution of recovered assets. This improves the viability of commencing insolvency proceedings as an asset recovery tool.
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
Singapore's economy is expected to see slower growth in 2023 after its rapid recovery from the pandemic in 2022, with the Ministry of Trade and Industry recently narrowing the GDP growth forecast for the year.1 As industries continue to feel the pinch of high inflation and interest rates, creditors and debtors alike may be considering appropriate solutions for companies which struggle to pay their debts.
Singapore has earned a budding reputation as a hub for debt restructuring and insolvency in Asia, with its transparent legal system and judicial expertise. This growth can also be attributed to enduring efforts to innovate and reform.
To enhance Singapore as a forum of choice in international restructuring and insolvency proceedings, the Rules of Court were amended with effect from 1 October 2022 to allow restructuring and insolvency matters which are international and commercial in nature to now be heard in the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC").
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
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.
Introduction
In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.
Facts