The Fifth Circuit recently weighed in on the hotly contested issue of whether the Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission (FERC) or the bankruptcy court has controlling jurisdiction when it comes to the question of a bankruptcy debtor’s ability to reject contracts regulated by FERC. FERC-regulated contracts include electricity power purchase contracts, as well as transportation services agreements involving oil and gas.

The Supreme Court of Victoria has considered the viability of allowing a company to enter a second voluntary administration after going into liquidation following a failed DOCA. The Court considered that rather than maintain a state of liquidation, the secondary voluntary administration process would better serve the best interests of creditors and optimise the efficiency of the restructuring process. The decision serves as a useful guide to the considerations and orders appropriate for successfully arguing a company out of liquidation.

Background

Family law processes cannot be used to defraud creditors. In Re ZH International Pty Ltd (in liq), the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that transfers of property from a company to the directors and shareholders of that company as part of family law proceedings were voidable transactions under section 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) where the company was not a party to the orders and the orders did not require the company to make the transfers.

Background

Public examination can be a useful tool for parties in a liquidation to obtain information about matters relating to a company’s affairs. In the matter of Jewel of India Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 141 963 813 (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 356, the Court considered whether summonses for public examination, that were issued by the former owner of the business to the liquidators and former administrators of Jewel Holdings, constituted an abuse of process.

In the bankruptcy world, not all claims are created equal. Rather, certain special categories of claims have priority status and are not only paid ahead of other claims, but are also often paid in full. One such category of claims is found in Bankruptcy Code § 503(b)(9), which grants priority claim status for goods which were sold in the ordinary course of business and received by a debtor within the 20-day window leading up to the bankruptcy filing. The code section is very clear, however.

In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

Background

In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.

In the recent case of In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 340, the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims, where the key asset is an entitlement to tax refunds for research and development.

This matter involved the liquidators of Spitfire Corporation seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that:

In March 2019, Liquidators were appointed to The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (TASCO) by way of a creditors’ voluntary winding up. TASCO owned a large lot of contaminated land – there were stockpiles of construction and demolition waste resulting from a former licensee conducting a materials recycling business.

Defendants to a proceeding related to a breach of an Asset Sale Agreement, successfully joined directors to the action by way of a third party notice, seeking damages for liability incurred where those directors had breached their directors obligations to discharge their duties with due care and diligence (Section 180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)).