On 19 September 2012, the Norton Rose Construction and Engineering team presented a breakfast briefing titled: “Financial Distress in Construction Projects: What happens when the wheels fall off?” 

This briefing identified the warnings signs of insolvency, what steps parties can take to minimise exposure, how best to respond to a party’s insolvency and the options available to prevent insolvency in the first place.

First and foremost here at the Drug and Device Law Blog, we like good, strong defense decisions.  If those decisions contain lessons (or reminders) for our everyday practice – so much the better.  That’s why we’ve blogged about cases that let us remind you to check publicly available information about plaintiffs, make sure the plaintiff was alive when she filed suit, and search bankruptcy filings to see if plaintiff disclosed her lawsuit.  We

Gothard v Fell; in the matter of Allco Financial Group Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) (2012) 88 ACSR 328

On 15 May 2012, Jacobson J of the Federal Court of Australia allowed an application by Receivers to be released from confidentiality undertakings so that use could be made of Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) examination transcripts.

Background

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision in the administration of the Hastie Group Limited (Hastie Group)¹ illustrates a number of important points for administrators, secured parties and purchasers under the new regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA). If you would like to discuss the implications of this case with any of our PPSA or insolvency litigation experts, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The facts

There have been some important recent legal developments that will likely impact acquisition finance. This article will survey some of the more notable ones.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, on May 15, 2012, overturned1 a prior District Court decision stemming from the bankruptcy case of Tousa, Inc., affirming a bankruptcy court’s earlier 2009 decision that had ordered the return, on fraudulent transfer grounds, of over $400 million that had been repaid to prior lenders of the Tousa parent company in connection with a secured financing to the parent and its subsidiaries.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC,¹ recently issued a decision that holds—contrary to the only other court of appeals that has addressed the issue—that rejection of a trademark licensing agreement by a debtor-licensor does not terminate the agreement and that a trademark licensee can thus continue using the license after rejection.

The Fourth Circuit’s Lubrizol Decision

At the end of 2011, the Federal Government introduced two draft Bills directed at clamping down on companies that engage in “phoenix” activity.

In our March 2012 Insurance Update we considered the potential widening of the scope for creditors to claim damages against a director personally for contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). The Supreme Court of Queensland awarded Phoenix Constructions over $1.2 million in damages against Mr McCracken for contravention of s 182 of the Act. This decision, a first of its kind, was appealed by Mr McCracken.

Bankruptcy

On March 5, 2012, new rules came into force for credit cooperatives in bankruptcy proceedings; the new rules feature:

In its recent decision in Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.,¹ the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an entity that meets the definition of a “single real estate” debtor under the Bankruptcy Code may not escape the consequences of such designation simply because it is a subsidiary of a group of companies with integrated and intertwined relationships among them. The decision may provide powerful rights not only to lenders to such entities in general, but could significantly enhance the rights of creditors of real estate owning single purpose entities.