In its recent judgment in Re Jabiru[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales applied principles governing the appointment of Special Purpose Liquidators (SPL) in rejecting the Plaintiffs’ application for a SPL to be appointed to pursue claims against secured lenders.

On June 6, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, in which the Court held that the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. 115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1229 (the “2017 Act”) was unconstitutional.

It is often the case, that insolvency claims are pursued against former directors of the insolvent company or persons connected to them. It is also often the case, that such claims are assigned to a litigation funding company given lack of funds in the insolvent estate to pursue them. This is what happened in Lock v Stanley where various claims against the former directors, their parents and connected company were assigned to Manolete.

In a recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision[1] in which we acted for the successful liquidators, the Court made various orders to enable the company to complete an ultra-efficient, streamlined second voluntary administration to expedite creditor consideration of a new DOCA proposal.

Key points

The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security.

The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security. Those risks include:

What options does a creditor have when they are frustrated with how a debtor is conducting its chapter 11 bankruptcy case? In In re PWM Property Management LLC, the Delaware bankruptcy court denied a motion by creditors and interest holders to file a proposed plan of reorganization as an exhibit to their opposition to the debtors’ motion to extend the exclusivity period. The PWM Property Management decision serves as an important reminder of the strict limits on who can file and solicit a plan of reorganization and when filing of a plan is appropriate.

In the case of Caversham Finance Limited (in administration) [2022] EWHC 789, the court considered whether errors in a notice to creditors seeking consent to extend an administration made the extension invalid. This case is important as it shows the court’s approach to omission of prescribed information in notices to creditors.

Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited (“Smile”), a Mauritian company, has recently had its second restructuring plan sanctioned by the High Court in England. The case contains some important markers for those involved in restructuring plans, particularly those plans which involve international elements or which seek to prevent out-of-the-money creditors from voting on the plan.

Background

On 5 April 2022, the UK government published the first review of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (the Rules) (the Report). It is evident from the Report that many respondents took the opportunity to raise issues faced in practice, not just with the Rules, but with the operation of the insolvency legislation in general.

It has almost been 12 months since the Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021 came into force on 30 April 2021. The regulations require an administrator to obtain creditor approval or a report from an independent evaluator in advance of completing a “substantial disposal” of the company’s property to a connected party within the first eight weeks of the administration.