In Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2),[1] the NSW Supreme Court handed down judgment in two proceedings (which were heard together) arising from the failure of Arrium and its broader corporate group.

Earlier this month – citing the “virtually unflagging obligation” of an Article III appellate court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction – the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decried the pervasive overreliance by district courts on the doctrine “equitable mootness” to duck appeals of confirmation orders.[1]

In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.

What happened?

Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up.

Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No. 2) (Substar No. 2) considers the Court’s discretionary power to terminate the winding up of a company pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Substar No. 2 follows the decision of Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2020] FCA 1863(Substar (No. 1), which considered the extent to which liquidators can realise trust assets when a corporate trustee enters into liquidation.

Judge Stacey Jernigan did not mince words in a recent opinion sanctioning the former CEO of Highland Capital Management, LP. Entities related to the former CEO brought suit against Highland (the debtor in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding), and sought leave from the district court to add Highland’s replacement CEO as a defendant. In Judge Jernigan’s view, such conduct violated her “gatekeeping” orders that required the bankruptcy court’s approval before “pursuing” actions against the new CEO.

A key goal of the Bankruptcy Code is to prevent corporate insiders from profiting from their employer’s misfortune. Section 503(c) of the Code makes clear: “there shall neither be allowed, nor paid... a transfer made to, or an obligation incurred for the benefit of, an insider of the debtor for the purpose of inducing such person to remain with the debtor's business” absent certain court-approved circumstances.

In Re Dessco Pty Ltd, the Victorian Supreme Court adjourned a winding up application for 50 days to allow time for creditors to vote on a restructuring plan.

Whilst the adjournment was opposed by the Plaintiff, the Judicial Registrar of the Court accepted the assessment formed by the Small Business Restructuring Practitioner that the company was eligible to avail itself of the new regime having regard to the criteria that must be satisfied (and the ‘just estimate’ approach adopted in respect of contingent liabilities) and the interests of the company’s creditors.

Some courts permit debtors to designate vendors crucial to their business as “critical vendors.” These vendors supply debtors with necessary goods or services. Debtors are permitted to pay them amounts owing when a bankruptcy case is filed. Accordingly, critical vendors often recover more on their pre-petition claims than other unsecured creditors. In other words, critical vendors could receive a full recovery, while other creditors only receive a fraction of what they are owed.

A mortgagee may be faced with a situation where the mortgagor becomes bankrupt and the trustee, in which the property then vests, disclaims the mortgaged property. By force of a trustee’s disclaimer, the bankrupt’s fee simple estate escheats to the Crown in the right of the State. When the Registrar of Titles receives a notice of disclaimer from a trustee, a Registrar’s caveat will be recorded over the property.