The UK High Court has ruled that the obligations of third-party guarantors are not affected by a part 26A restructuring plan being sanctioned in respect of the underlying obligations. This approach mirrors the way guarantees are dealt with in a part 26 scheme of arrangement.
The case of Oceanfill Ltd. v Nuffield Health Wellbeing Ltd & Cannons Group Limited examined whether a restructuring plan under part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Act”) had the effect of releasing liability arising under a third-party guarantee.
Following a long wait of 18 months, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana is unanimously dismissed.
The key question that many of us have been waiting for the answer to is: Does the creditor duty set out in s172(3) of the Companies Act 2006 exist and if so, when is it engaged?
The Supreme Court has refused permission for the case of Lock v Stanley to be appealed, meaning that the Court of Appeal’s approach to questions around the assignment by a liquidator of claims in the insolvent estate stands.
Most notably the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liquidator is under no duty to offer defendants the right to acquire the claims against them unless the failure to do so would be perverse.
In Kellow, Re Advanced Building & Construction Ltd (In Liq) v Advanced Building & Construction Ltd (In Liq) (No 2) (Kellow) the Court considered whether an insolvency proceeding commenced in New Zealand should be recognised as a “foreign main proceeding” pursuant to the United Nations’ Commission on International Trade Law’s Model Law on International Trade Law (Model Law).
In a recent case involving a former financial services provider in liquidation, thousands of pending claims from former customers and a letter of comfort with a looming expiry date, the Liquidators appointed to wind up Forex Capital Trading Pty Limited successfully applied to the Federal Court of Australia for orders permitting them to conduct an expedited process for the adjudication and admission of claims.
Background
Thanks are owed to SPB summer associate Gabby Martin for her contributions to this article.
Last month, a Florida federal jury found in favor of a credit reporting agency (“CRA”) in a trial centering on whether the CRA took “reasonable” steps to assure the accuracy of a consumer’s credit report after a consumer dispute. The result is a valuable glimpse into how juries view the burdens of the statutory obligations placed on reporting agencies by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).
In Brooks, in the matter of Tease Hair & Spa Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Federal Court made orders in favour of the Liquidator, pursuant to section 90-15 of Schedule 2 to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations)) and section 47 of the Trustee Act 1989 (Tas) allowing the Liquidator to realise trust property for the benefit of creditors.
Background
The perceived costs of proposing a restructuring plan are seen to be the biggest inhibitors to using the process for SMEs. It is still a relatively new tool and insolvency practitioners, lawyers and the courts are still grappling with it, but as we have seen recently in Amigo Loans it can provide creative and innovative restructuring solutions[1].
This matter involved the former director and former accountant of CGS Constructions (QLD) Pty Ltd filing proceedings seeking an injunction to restrain the Liquidators from engaging Cornwalls Lawyers to act on the basis that:
- Cornwalls also acted for a substantial creditor, Union Share Pty Ltd; and
- the Liquidators, by engaging Cornwalls, had manifested a tendency to favour certain interests at the expense of others.
Background
In the matter of Squirrel Limited (In Liquidation), the Court considered an application for summary judgement against a director for insolvent trading. In doing so, the Court considered the principles underpinning a director’s duty to prevent insolvent trading and the compensation payable as a result.
Background