Terminating DoCA's (Part 3) – Administrators' Casting Vote

Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")

IMO Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")

Summary

Where there is a deadlock between the majority in value of creditors and those creditors with a majority in number on the vote for a DoCA, the administrator has a casting vote.

Terminating DoCA's (Part 2) – Unfair Prejudice or Injustice

Canstruct Pty Limited v Project Sea Dragon Pty Limited (No. 4) [2024] FCA 112 ("Canstruct")¹

Commissioner of State Revenue v McCabe (No. 2) [2024] FCA 662 ("McCabe")

Academy Construction & Development Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 808 ("Academy Construction")

Deeds of Company Arrangement – Insured Claims

Destination Brisbane Consortium Integrated Resort Operations Pty Ltd as Trustee v PCA (Qld) Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] QSC 178 ("Destination Brisbane")

In Destination Brisbane two questions, which concerned the entitlements of insured creditors under a DoCA, arose for consideration in the context of an application for judicial advice:

Due Diligence by Voluntary Administrators in respect of their Appointment

Robust Construction Services Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 1156 ("Robust")

DoCA's: What Claims can be Released?

PK Riddell Investments Pty Ltd v Upwards Up And Gone Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 159 ("Riddell Investments")

Limiting Liability of Administrators for Employee Wages

Walley IMO PGP Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1554 ("PGP Group") and Crosbie IMO Godfreys Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 60 ("Godfreys")

Voluntary administrators have been able to seek orders releasing them from their personal liability for debts incurred by them in the course of conducting a company's business. That relief has been available where it has been necessary to support the continuing operation of that business.

Cryptoassets are traded on a global basis. Indeed, the markets are even more global and constant than markets in more conventional financial instruments, rivalled only perhaps by the FX markets in their reach.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background