The bankruptcy bar is abuzz following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 15-649, 2017 BL 89680, 85 U.S.L.W. 4115 (Sup. Ct. March 22, 2017), holding that bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals that do not adhere to the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.
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.
A debtor cannot recover sanctions or attorneys’ fees under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) when the debtor admits to having suffered no actual damages and the filing of a motion for sanctions was not necessary to remedy a stay violation.[1] Denying the debtor’s motion for sanctions, the U.S.
A recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal (handed down on 14 July 2016) highlights a number of areas in which conflicts can arise in a commercial transaction involving multiple secured parties and the extent to which the interests of lower-ranked secured parties need to be considered when the proceeds are dealt with.
The case - Nom de Plume
On 23 February 2016, Justice Brereton in the New South Wales Supreme Court handed down the decision in the matter ofIndependent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 106.
This is an important judgment, with significant consequences for the insolvency community.
The decision deals with two fundamental aspects of insolvency law, being:
Click here to view the table.
Bankruptcy lawyers across the country learned this lesson in 2015: A fine year can be a flat year.
In December 2015, the Department of Housing and Public Works Queensland released a discussion paper seeking feedback on the issue of security of payment in the building and construction industry. The paper seeks feedback from the widest possible cross section of the building and construction industry on the following identified issues:
When a buyer’s characteristics can determine whether they are misled about the features of a property
Orchid Avenue Pty Ltd v Hingston & Anor [2015] QSC 42 per McMurdo J
This case highlights the importance of buyers making their own enquiries when purchasing properties for reasons that relate to features external to the property, such as ocean views.