Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and Federal Rule 58 can sometimes look like this. Carolina and Khaled have a much simpler solution.

When can a Federal Court employ a federal common law rule to make its decision in the case? Justice Gorsuch answer this in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., U.S., No. 18-1269, 2/25/20.[1] The answer . . . less often than you might think.

This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Re Watch Works Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) & Anor; Ex Parte Francis & Ors [2020] WASC 6, in which the Supreme Court of Western Australia determined two linked companies were to be a ‘pooled group’ in order to satisfy the external debts payable by both companies.

What happened?

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Are the regimes of construction adjudication and insolvency incompatible? Recent Court of Appeal authority suggested that they are, but in Meadowside Building Developments Ltd (In Liquidation) v 12-18 Hill Street Management Company Ltd [2019] EWHC (TCC), Adam Constable QC sitting as a district judge in the high court has clarified the exceptional circumstances in which a company in liquidation can enforce an adjudicator’s decision in its favour.

This week’s edition of TGIF considers the landmark decision of the High Court in BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster; Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall[2019] HCA 45 and what it might mean for insolvency practitioners.

Decision

This week’s TGIF considers the latest decision in Arrium and the recent refusal by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to set aside, on Arrium’s application, a summons for examination to a former director.

What happened?

On 15 May 2019, a Registrar issued a summons for examination and orders for production to a former director of Arrium following an application by two shareholders of the company. The shareholders had been authorised as eligible applicants by the ASIC the previous year.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited v Concrete Supply Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (No 4)[2019] FCA 1846, where the Court terminated a deed of company arrangement in circumstances where the administrators had not undertaken sufficient investigations.

Background

On 4 November 2017, administrators were appointed to Concrete Supply Pty Ltd.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application by a liquidator to the NSW Supreme Court for directions regarding the sale of trust property where the trust deed could not be found.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision where the Court found a company’s general purpose liquidators had not acted unreasonably in opposing an application that special purpose liquidators also be appointed.

Background