The Federal Court has recently confirmed that liquidators are able to assign their rights to examine people and to obtain the production of documents.

Liquidators may now find that there is greater interest from litigation funders to purchase potential claims that have not been fully investigated.

Overview

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

On April 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald (In re Circuit City Stores, Inc.), Case No. 19-2240 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021), upholding the constitutionality of a 2017 law that substantially increased the quarterly fees debtors are required to pay to the Office of the United States Trustee (the “US Trustee”) in chapter 11 bankruptcy cases.

On March 31, 2021, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada awarded attorney’s fees to a debtor under a Nevada fee-shifting statute for objecting to a time-barred proof of claim.¹ The opinion serves as a warning that filing a proof of claim for time-barred debt may carry consequences other than claim disallowance despite the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Midland Fu

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

A year ago, many predicted that the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines and their impact on the economy would result in a deluge of bankruptcy filings that could rival the Great Recession of 2008-2009. However, as we approach the one-year anniversary of former President Trump declaring the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus a national emergency, that prediction has not come to pass.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, __ U.S. __, 2021 WL 125106 (Jan. 14, 2021), which addresses issues related to the automatic stay and a creditor’s ability to retain property of a debtor’s estate upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case. The Fulton decision is a consolidation of four similar cases where the City of Chicago impounded debtor cars pre-petition in response to unpaid traffic tickets and fines. After filing for bankruptcy, each debtor requested that the City return the respective vehicles.

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices

Summary

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.