Key Points:
A DOCA can extinguish claims under a guarantee, even where those claims arise following the DOCA's termination.
If the underlying debt has already been extinguished by a DOCA, can a secured creditor still enforce the charge? A recent case explored the role of section 444D(2) of the Corporations Act in this situation, with implications for parties seeking to rely on guarantees from companies that have been through a DOCA (Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holdings Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 95).
Key Points:
Section 562A of the Corporations Act does not apply where liquidator realises a sum of money by assigning the proceeds of the reinsurance claim to a third party.
Liquidators of insurance companies face a major quandary when assessing reinsurance recoveries.
A new Court decision may undercut the legislative policy that reinsurance proceeds should be quarantined from the normal rules for paying out creditors of insolvent companies.
Key Points:
These three cases illustrate that strict compliance with legislative requirements continues to be imperative when serving statutory demands.
Despite what appears to be a fairly straightforward legislative regime, creditors' statutory demands appear to generate an entirely disproportionate volume of litigation in the courts. The drastic consequences of failing to comply with a creditor's statutory demand warrant very strict compliance by creditors with the technical requirements of the regime.
Orla McCoy explains the connections between retention of title clauses, insolvency, and the Personal Property Securities Act.
Click here to view video.
On May 4, 2015, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a decision in Quadrant Structured Products Co., Ltd. v. Vertin,1 analyzing creditors’ standing to bring derivative claims against directors and officers of Delaware corporations. Building on the Delaware Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding fiduciary duties owed to creditors,2Vice Chancellor Laster’s opinion has two primary holdings.
Key Points:
Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.
Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.
Insolvent subcontractor’s claim
This article was originally published by LatinFinance on November 25, 2014.
A rise of cross-border insolvencies in recent years has generated substantial litigation. In some cases, US bondholders, perceiving their treatment under a foreign reorganization plan to be inequitable, have sought a second chance by opposing the plan in the US on the grounds that its enforcement would be contrary to domestic public policy.
This article first appeared in the American Bankruptcy Institute, November, 2014.
Key Points:
There are three things prudent insolvency practitioners can do when left with non-company assets.
A not too infrequent issue for insolvency practitioners: what can you do with unclaimed assets of third parties? Clayton Utz recently acted for the receivers and managers of Arcabi Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (known as “The Rare Coin Company”) and developed a strategy to deal with the issue.
Background
Key Points:
Courts will limit an administrator's liability where proposed funding is to be used directly to advance an agenda consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.
A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court highlights the flexibility of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and the ability of administrators to seek orders protecting their interests and facilitating restructures, and was the first stage of what promises to be a novel and challenging administration (In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1041).