It is common for liquidators (and all of us working in the insolvency industry) to work with a few firms or individuals and for referrals to predominantly be distributed amongst those. In the recent decision in Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq); ASIC V Franklin [2014] FCA 68, the Federal Court considered when that relationship might amount to a conflict.
A Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is essentially the equivalent of a PIA for a corporation. However, a company must be in administration for a DOCA to be proposed.
A Personal Insolvency Agreement, otherwise known as a PIA, is a flexible arrangement between debtors and their creditors. It involves a debtor putting forward a proposal as to how their financial affairs should be administered with a view to ensuring that creditors receive a dividend in respect of their debts.
A PIA will only come into operation if it has been accepted by a special resolution at a meeting of creditors – meaning a majority in numbers and at least 75% in value must vote in favour of the PIA.
On October 28, 2013, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) announced that it had reached a settlement with the former directors and officers of Northstar Aerospace whereby those former directors and officers agreed to pay $4.75 million for costs associated with the remediation of contaminated lands owned by the now-bankrupt company. The Environmental Review Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement at the hearing held on October 28.
Partner, Michael Lhuede and Senior Associate, Ben Hartley discuss the recent Federal Court decision of AMWU v Beynon that dealt with directors’ personal liability for the payment of employee entitlements.
Introduction
Insolvency practitioners need to be aware of the potential for incurring personal liability under civil penalty provisions for contraventions of the Fair Work Act and how they can protect themselves from claims when accepting appointments.
Upon the filing of an appeal of a bankruptcy order, that order is stayed pursuant to section 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”). In Msi Spergel v. I.F. Propco Holdings (Ontario) 36 Ltd., 2013 ONCA 550, the Ontario Court of Appeal had to decide whether that stay suspends the limitation period applicable to a motion by a trustee to set aside a preferential payment by a bankrupt under s. 95 of the BIA.
In a decision rendered on August 15, 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Nortel denied a motion for leave to appeal in a CCAA proceeding, reiterating the stringent test for leave to appeal in such circumstances. More importantly for our purposes, the court reiterated the necessity for a motion for leave to adduce fresh evidence where the moving party seeks to rely upon such evidence.
The recent Australian Federal Court decision of Yu v STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (South Korea) in the matter of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd (receivers appointed in South Korea) [2013] FCA 680 has the effect of allowing the arrest of a ship in Australia, despite the operation of the Cross Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) which incorporates the United Nations Model Law on cross border insolvency into Australian law.