On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision which, among other things,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ holding that certain noteholders were not entitled to payment of a make-whole premium. The Second Circuit held that the make-whole premium only was due in the case of an optional redemption, and not in the case of an acceleration brought about by a bankruptcy filing.
On October 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important decision regarding the manner in which interest must be calculated to satisfy the cramdown requirements in a chapter 11 case.[1] The Second Circuit sided with Momentive’s senior noteholders and found that “take back” paper issued pursuant to a chapter 11 plan should bear a market rate of interest when the market rate can be ascerta
On October 3, 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Laurie Selber Silverstein of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve third-party releases in a final order confirming a plan of reorganization.
We are now past the second tranche of changes under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), comprised most importantly of Part 3 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) (containing the General Rules relating to external administrations) which came into effect on 1 September 2017.
Part 3 of the IPS will apply to external administrations that start on or after 1 September 2017.
- On 18 September 2017 the Treasury Law Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act) became law.
- The Safe Harbour reforms introduced in the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency processes.
Division 65 and the New Strict Liability Regime
As part of the significant reforms to insolvency and bankruptcy laws introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (ILRA), parliament has sought to condense and simplify the requirement for external administrators to avoid conflicts of interest.
Whether you are a liquidator, director, employee, shareholder or creditor of a company in financial distress, the experience of a corporate insolvency is usually not pleasant. Directors face the threat of being investigated for breaches of directors duties, employees become unemployed, shareholders become the owners of worthless assets and creditors are forced to come to the realisation that they will never see the money owed to them (or at least not all of it).
The recent decision of Markovic J in Robert Kite and Mark Hutchins in their capacity as liquidators of Mooney’s Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor v Lance Mooney & Anor [2017] FCA 653 in the Federal Court of Australia provides practitioners with further clarification of the requirements when insolvency practitioners are appointed to companies which operate as corporate trustees.
KEY TAKE-HOMES FOR INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS
Back in March 2017 the NSW Court of Appeal handed down the unanimous decision in Sanderson as Liquidator of Sakr Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sakr [2017] NSWCA 38 (Sakr), reigning in Brereton J’s application of proportionality to liquidator’s remuneration. This week the decision of in the matter of Australian Company Number 074 962 628 Pty Ltd (in liq) (formerly Colonial Staff Super Pty Ltd) [2017] NSWSC 370 (Colonial Super) was handed down by the NSW Supreme Court. The decision is notable as one of the first applications of the principles enunciated in the Sakr decision.