On Sunday, May 1st, Energy Future Holdings Corp. (“EFH”) filed a new joint chapter 11 plan of reorganization and disclosure statement (the “New Plan”) after plans to fund EFH’s exit from bankruptcy by selling its Oncor power distribution business failed.

BACKGROUND

By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc  [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules.  Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.

The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.

Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt.  Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.

The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.

In the high-profile bankruptcy case of Energy Future Holdings Corp. (“EFH”) a Delaware bankruptcy court recently called into question reliance on structural subordination as a way to protect a borrower’s assets from satisfying claims against an affiliated company. In the EFH bankruptcy case, holders of unsecured PIK notes issued by EFH subsidiary Energy Future Intermediate Holdings Company LLC (“EFIH”) sought to collect post-petition interest at the rate stated in the notes issued by EFIH.

Freezing orders and the Foreign Judgments Act

Freezing orders (also known as Mareva orders or Mareva injunctions) are oft-used tools available to a plaintiff to preserve the assets of a defendant, where there is a danger of the defendant absconding or of the assets being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise diminished. Such dangers put in peril the ability of a plaintiff to recover any favourable judgment against that defendant.

Introduction

The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers.  In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.

General Position

1. On 11 March 2015, the High Court delivered its decision in Fortress Credit & Anor v Fletcher & Ors [2015] HCA 10.
2. The appellant was Fortress Credit.

1. On 11 March 2015 the High Court delivered its decision in Grant Samuel & Ors v Fletcher & Ors [2015] HCA 8.
2. The appellants were Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited and JP Morgan Chase Bank.

The Senate has announced a national inquiry into insolvency in the Australian construction industry (Inquiry).^[1]