Whilst the power of a chairperson to exercise a casting vote at creditors’ meetings is a useful mechanism to resolve a deadlock in voting, it does not confer unconstrained discretion. The recent Glenfyne Appeal[1] provides valuable guidance as to the appropriate exercise of a casting vote and also serves as a reminder of the Court’s significant powers to review and reverse failed creditors’ resolutions due to the exercise of a casting vote.

On 25 June 2020, the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (the Act) received Royal Assent, and the majority of its provisions are now in force. The Act has introduced a number of permanent reforms and temporary measures, which together represent the most significant change to English insolvency law in nearly 20 years.

Permanent Reforms

The permanent reforms include:

In ACN 093 117 232 Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Intelara Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2019] FCA 1489, the court considered whether a “legal phoenix” arrangement entered into after receiving professional advice was in fact a voidable transaction.

The facts

Intelara Pty Ltd (OldCo) operated an engineering consultancy business and after experiencing financial difficulties in 2014 sought professional advice concerning the potential restructure of the company.

In KSK Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1463 a liquidator sought directions from the Supreme Court of New South Wales under section 90-15(1) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) at Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

In Clifton (Liquidator) v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd trading as Clenergy [2020] FCAFC 5, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that:

It is common in a corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcy to sell substantially all of a debtor’s assets. When the sale is supervised and approved by a bankruptcy court, purchasers will be protected from subsequent attacks on the sale or its process.

Intercreditor agreements between multiple lenders are part and parcel of lending to a company with several tranches of debt. Under section 510 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”), “[a] subordination agreement is enforceable in a case under this title to the same extent that such agreement is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” 11 U.S.C. § 510(a) (West 2017).

The sole shareholder of several closely held corporate entities engages in a fraudulent transfer by extinguishing one entity’s right to payment from a third party in exchange for the release of liabilities owed by other entities to that same third party. In Motorworld, Inc. v. William Benkendorf, et al., __ N.J. __ (Mar. 30, 2017), the New Jersey Supreme Court voided such a transfer against a Chapter 7 debtor corporation whose sole asset was a $600,000 loan receivable purportedly cancelled by the release.

The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. ___ (2017)1 on March 21, reversing the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of an order approving the distribution of the proceeds of settlement of bankruptcy estate causes of action to general unsecured creditors via structured dismissal, with no distribution to holders of priority wage claims.

The Court framed the question presented, and its ruling, very narrowly—twice. First:

In a very recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that a negative inference to an exception to a negative covenant prevented a company from undertaking a proposed restructuring transaction. We find the case unique not because of the result necessarily, but rather because the court used the negative inference to override another express provision in the Credit Agreement.