In family law property settlement proceedings, if a spouse is declared bankrupt, the trustee in bankruptcy may join the proceedings in an effort to recover funds from the property pool to pay the bankrupt’s creditors.

While in theory this approach sounds sensible, it may not always be prudent for a trustee in bankruptcy to seek to be joined or consent to being joined. In particular, recent trends suggest that trustees are being very cautious about getting involved in proceedings between a bankrupt and their spouse.

The involvement of a trustee in bankruptcy

The United States bankruptcy judge overseeing the liquidation of MF Global Inc., approved the trustee’s proposal to pay  all unsecured general creditors $461 million. Once paid, this distribution would result in total distributions to unsecured general creditors of 72 percent of their approved claims.

The New York State Attorney General settled a lawsuit against Ernst & Young related to its involvement in the financial statement preparation of Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. The NY AG had alleged that the auditing firm had countenanced Lehman’s inclusion of certain repurchase transactions as sales and not as financings, which permitted the firm to remove “tens of billions of dollars” of securities from its balance sheet. According to the NY AG, the repo transactions—known as “Repo 105”—“served no legitimate purpose.

The trustee for the liquidation of MF Global Inc. is seeking permission from the bankruptcy judge overseeing the firm’s dissolution to make a distribution of US $461 million to unsecured general creditors. If approved, this distribution would result in total distributions to unsecured general creditors of 72 percent of their approved claims. To date, the trustee has distributed 100 percent of approved claims of MF Global’s customers (totaling US $6.7 billion), and 100 percent of approved secured, priority and administrative claims.

In Allco Funds Management Limited v Trust Co (Re Services) Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1251, an inter-company loan transaction was challenged by a receiver appointed by the secured creditor to one of the companies. Common directors were involved in the transaction. The issue was whether the directors breached their fiduciary duties entitling the company via the receiver to have the transaction set aside.

The background to the case

A debtor company can seek to have a statutory demand set aside if there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, or the company has an offsetting claim.

Because the threshold for contesting a statutory demand is relatively low, a creditor may decide it is better to issue the statutory demand for the undisputed portion of the total debt after making an appropriate allowance for the amount of the total debt in dispute or the amount of the alleged offsetting claim.

When a company is facing short term financial difficulties the directors or shareholders may decide to make a loan to the company to pay wages. 

On January 14, 2015, Target Corporation ("Target US") announced the exit of substantially all of its Canadian operations less than two years after opening its first Canadian stores in a strategic push to operate at least one store in every province of Canada. The following day, on January 15, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) in Toronto (the "Court") granted Target Canada Co.

Introduction

Debts claimed in statutory demands must be due and payable to the creditor named in the statutory demand.

When disputing statutory demands it is common for debtor companies to argue an offsetting claim, so as to reduce or extinguish the amount claimed in the statutory demand.

For there to be a valid offsetting claim there must be ‘mutuality’, meaning that the legal capacities in which both the offsetting claim and the statutory demand debt are each claimed and owed must align.