A spate of recent decisions approving liquidators’ remuneration on an ad valorembasis had caused some trepidation amongst insolvency practitioners facing the prospect of court fee approval.

A recent decision by the Federal Court of Australia may be useful for liquidators faced with an application to commence or continue civil proceedings against a company in liquidation.

The decision – in brief

The United States Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b)(6), caps a landlord's claim in bankruptcy for damages resulting from the termination of a real property lease. See In re PPI EnterprisesU.S., 324 F.3d 197, 207 (3rd Cir. 2003). Under Section 502(b)(6), a landlord-creditor is entitled to rent reserve from the greater of one lease year or 15 percent, not to exceed three years, of the remaining lease term.

Recently, in a split (2-1) decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s decision in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., 111 F. Supp.3d 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Marblegate II”). The Second Circuit held in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp., No. 15-2124, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 782 (2d Cir. Jan.

Selvam LLC, the Singapore Law Practice of Duane Morris & Selvam LLP, recently succeeded in securing the dismissal of a suit brought by a liquidator in the High Court of Singapore against a defendant director in Prima Bulkship Pte Ltd (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and Another v Lim Say Wan And Another [2016] SGHC 283.

Liquidators can rest assured that courts are reluctant to interfere in their commercial judgments or permit liquidators to be personally exposed to mandatory examinations under s596ACorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act).

Companies in distress often undertake a sales of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues when other lines of credit or source of funds have been exhausted. Such decisions are not taken lightly, especially as the disposal of assets is likely to detrimentally impact the underlying business or forecasts. Ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts will result in action being taken however it is often too late and to the detriment of the business.

Introduction

It is common for companies in distress to undertake a sales process of assets to alleviate cash flow or debt repayment issues. Often this course of action is the last resort after all other lines of credit have been exhausted or creditors have stopped providing extended terms of trade. Companies should not take such decisions lightly, especially if the sale will impact the underlying business or forecasts. However, ultimately creditors’ demands and survival instincts result in action being taken (often too late and to the detriment of the company).

In its recent judgment in Ting Shwu Ping (Administrator of the estate of Chng Koon Seng, Deceased) v Scanone Pte Ltd and another appeal [2016] SGCA 65, the Singapore Court of Appeal set out the test to be applied in deciding whether to exercise its discretion under section 254(2A) of the Companies Act to order a buy-out instead of a winding-up where a party has applied to wind up the company under section 254(1)(f) (where the directors have acted in the affairs of the company in their own interest rather than the interests of members as a whole) or section 254(1)(i) (where it is ju

Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled proposed amendments to the Singapore Companies Act to be made in 2017 to strengthen Singapore as an International Centre for Debt Restructuring (“the proposed amendments”). The Ministry of Law released the proposed amendments for public consultation from 21 October 2016 to 2 December 2016.