In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

Your insurer goes bust – can you as an insured claim the reinsurance proceeds? An important decision in the NSW Supreme Court gives useful guidance on when a court will allow departures from the statutory scheme controlling the application of reinsurance proceeds (Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90).

The insurer goes broke, and there are all these claimants at the door…

Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.

On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.

The fixed and floating charge

The United States Bankruptcy Court recently denied confirmation of a bankruptcy plan even though it found that the plan's global settlement was "fair and reasonable."1 Why? Because the plan's releases were too broad and "unreasonable" for many of the constituents. The case provides a pointed lesson to creditors and debtors alike — pay attention to the releases; overdoing it may sink the whole ship.

On August 4, 2010, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division extended equitable principles previously applied in mortgage foreclosure cases to how far an unsecured judgment creditor could go to satisfy its lien against a debtor, deciding to follow a line of cases standing for the principal that “even in the absence of express statutory authorization, a court has inherent equitable authority to allow a fair market value credit in order to prevent a double recovery by a creditor against a debtor.” Moreover, in the case, MMU of New York, Inc. v.

Key Points: All companies, regardless of their size or solvency, must ensure that they have appropriate systems for dealing with statutory demands.

In my last article, I looked at the use of statutory demands. Time now to go through the looking glass and examine the impact of demands on the companies which receive them.

First, a brief recap …

Key Points: An administrator of a deed of company arrangement has been allowed to sell the company over a shareholder's objections.

The GFC has seen a significant rise in the number of corporate insolvencies.[1]

Many of those insolvencies have been the result of tighter credit, rather than a collapse of the company's business. It's no surprise, therefore, that there is a major appetite for the acquisition of distressed businesses and companies.

Key Points: The fact that you're a very big company doesn't mean you needn't follow the legal rules for the execution of documents.

Background

A large insurance company claimed to be a creditor of Ungul, a property developer. Ungul was in voluntary administration.

A meeting of Ungul's creditors was called for 11 June. The insurance company's solicitors contacted the administrator and said that:

Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is intended to allow financially stressed debtors to restructure their debt obligations through a plan of reorganization. Typically, a Chapter 11 plan places different types of claims in different classes and, subject to various requirements of the Bankruptcy Code, allows the debtor to pay only portions of the claims (and in certain circumstances not to pay certain claims at all). Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code allows a debtor the flexibility to structure a plan to defer the payment of certain claims.

In a recent decision in the Chapter 11 case of Project Orange Associates, LLC1, the court confronted an important issue that often arises in bankruptcy cases: whether the use of conflicts counsel is sufficient to permit court approval under section 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s choice for general bankruptcy counsel that also represents an important creditor of the debtor in unrelated matters. Here, the conflict involved the debtor's largest unsecured creditor and an essential supplier.