A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.
The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.
In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.
The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.
The law is now clear. Or is it?
For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.
If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?
On October 20, 2017, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC ("Momentive"), Nos. 15-1682, 15-1771, 15-1824, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court's opinion in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), adopted the Sixth Circuit's two-step approach to determining an appropriate cramdown interest rate that, in certain circumstances, results in the application of a market rate of interest. In doing so, the Second Circuit reversed the bankruptcy and district court holdings on the cramdown interest rate issue.
On June 22, Sears Canada Inc. ("Sears Canada") and certain affiliates1 (collectively, the "Sears Canada Group") sought and obtained insolvency protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the "Court"), which in turn appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. (FTI or the "Monitor") as monitor.
It is common practice for company contracts to contain clauses, known as “ipso facto” clauses, which terminate or amend the contract (e.g. by accelerating payments) merely because a company has entered into a formal insolvency process.
On 28 March 2017, the Federal Government released draft reform legislation to Australia’s insolvency laws to promote a culture of entrepreneurship and help reduce the stigma associated with business failure.
The reforms, known as ‘safe-harbour’ provisions propose changes to directors’ personal liability for insolvent trading under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).
Background
The recent Federal Court of Australia decision of The Owners – Strata Plan No 14120 v McCarthy (No 2) [2016] FCCA 2017, demonstrates the dangers of errors in a bankruptcy notice.
In McCarthy, the Court found that when a debtor disputes the validity of a bankruptcy notice on the ground of a misstatement of the amount claimed, the debtor’s notice does not need to identify the misstatement with complete precision to render the bankruptcy notice invalid.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a "bet the company" litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
For many litigants, the decision whether to prosecute or defend a lawsuit vigorously boils down to a rather basic calculus: What are my chances of success? What is the potential recovery or loss? Is this a “bet the company” litigation? And, how much will I have to pay the lawyers? In many respects, it is not all that different from a poker player eyeing his chip stack and deciding whether the pot odds and implied odds warrant the call of a big bet.
On January 17, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered a much anticipated decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Corp., No. 15-2124-cv(L), 15-2141-cv(CON), reversing the Southern District of New York's holding that only a non-consensual amendment to an indenture's core payment terms violates Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).