To the extent authorized by a State, Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code allows municipalities (defined as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality”) of that State – including public hospitals – to reorganize their debts in the face of insolvency. Municipalities achieve this goal through implementation of a court-approved plan of adjustment. Although the standards for confirming (approving) a Chapter 9 plan resemble the well-established standards for confirming a Chapter 11 plan, differences exist.

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.

Working with distressed businesses always presents a wide array of challenges. Solving a distressed company’s problems, or your problems with it, rarely is limited to a single legal discipline, set of laws or state or federal policy. When a distressed enterprise is involved, all kinds of interests and policies can and do clash.

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

Be careful what you’ve promised your customers…or what has been promised about data you buy!

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.

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.