The Federal Court of Australia recently considered the Court’s discretionary power to provide assistance to a foreign trustee (Hong Kong) in bankruptcy, by way of appointing a receiver over divisible property located in Australia in the case of Lees v O’Dea (No 2) [2014] FCA 1082.  It also continued the ongoing focus on practitioner’s remuneration, an issue which has attracted some attention in various state courts.

Background

An often complicated and at times mysterious issue that arises for practitioners and their lawyers in the insolvency space is how one should approach trusts and trust assets. This year, there have been at least three Supreme Court of New South Wales decisions (all, incidentally, delivered by Justice Brereton) that may provide some much needed judicial guidance on the matter.

German insolvency law, unlike US insolvency law, only recently introduced (in 2012) the so-called protective shield proceedings (Schutzschirmverfahren) to enable potentially illiquid and/or over-indebted debtors to restructure the company on the basis of a so-called insolvency plan. Thereby, the liquidation of a company by a future insolvency administrator can be avoided.

November 10, 2014, is the deadline for filing proof of claims with the Office of the Special Deputy Receiver in Illinois regarding the estates of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company and American Motorists Insurance Company. Those insurance companies are all part of the Lumbermens Mutual Group and were formerly known as Kemper. They entered liquidation on May 10, 2013.

Re: Joe & Joe Developments Pty Ltd (subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1444

Recently, Courts have increased focus on the appropriateness of expenditure (including legal fees) incurred by insolvency practitioners and the steps they should undertake to determine if the costs and expenses are reasonable. Warren Jiear, Partner and Tim Logan, Associate look at a case handed down on 22 October 2014 that considered these issues and the implications for practitioners.

In its October 1, 2014 decision in Quadrant Structured Prods. Co. v. Vertin, et al., C.A. No. 6990, the Delaware Court of Chancery applied the protections afforded under the business judgment rule to investment strategies adopted by directors of insolvent corporations. The court held that the business judgment rule barred derivative claims asserted against directors by a creditor who had alleged that the company’s high-risk investment strategy was implemented for the purpose of benefitting the corporation’s controller at the creditors’ expense.

Senior Associate, Sarah Drinkwater, Associate, Tim Logan and Paralegal, Erin Donald discuss the recent case of AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 093 616 445 [2014] NSWSC 1004.

The facts

The applicants were the Liquidators of AAA Financial Intelligence Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company).

In Akers (as a joint foreign representative of Saad Investments Company Ltd) (in official liquidation) (a company registered in the Cayman Islands) v DCT [2014]FCAFC 57 the Federal Court of Australia recently upheld an earlier landmarkdecision concerning the proper construction and interpretation of the Model Lawon Cross Border Insolvency on the United Nations Commission on InternationalTrade Law, made part of Aust

Loan agreements and bond indentures often contain "make-whole" provisions, which provide yield protection to lenders and investors in the event of a repayment prior to maturity. They accomplish this by requiring the borrower to pay a premium for pre-payment of a loan. This allows lenders to lock-in a guaranteed rate of return when they agree to provide financing. Borrowers also benefit since the yield protection allows lenders to offer lower interest rates or fees than they would absent such protection.

On July 16, 2014, the Uniform Law Commission (the “Commission”) approved a series of discrete amendments to the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the “UFTA”) and renamed it the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (the “UVTA”). The UVTA is intended to address inconsistency in the courts, better harmonize with the Bankruptcy Code and the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), and provide litigants with greater certainty in its application to a fraudulent transfer action.