Like many areas of insolvency law, statutory demands have strict procedural requirements as to the timing by which documents must be served. But how is the passage of time calculated? If something is required to be done "21 days after" a document is served, is this intended to be inclusive or exclusive of the day the document was served? The Supreme Court of NSW recently grappled with this issue in Verimark Pty Ltd v Passiontree Velvet Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 455 and has provided clarity for lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike.

The decision of the High Court of Australia in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28; 261 CLR 132 (Ramsay) clarified the limits of a Bankruptcy Court's discretion to "go behind" a judgment, that is, to investigate whether the underlying debt relied upon for the making of a sequestration order is, in truth and reality, owing to the petitioning creditor. Recently, the Ramsay decision was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Dunkerley v Comcare [2019] FCA 1002 (Dunkerley).

We have blogged several times about mass tort plaintiffs who failed to list their tort claims in prior bankruptcy proceedings, thereby stiffing their creditors. See here, for example. Do they get away with it? Usually not. Courts have routinely sent those tort plaintiffs packing, and two different theories call for that result: (1) lack of standing, and (2) judicial estoppel.

The new EU Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks¹ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 26 June 2019 and entered into force on 16 July 2019. The objective of the Directive is to harmonize the laws and procedures of EU member states concerning preventive restructurings, insolvency and the discharge of debt.

On 19 June 2019, the much-anticipated High Court appeal in the matter of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (also known as the "Amerind appeal") was handed down.

1. Background

The sauvegarde filing by Camaïeu’s holding company Modacin France SAS (Holdco) has been reported in the French press as one of the first cases where a safeguard proceeding has been opened by a company’s management in order to prevent its creditors from enforcing the fiducie previously granted to them over the shares of Holdco’s subsidiary as part of a court-approved restructuring proceeding (conciliation) of the group back in 2016.

Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?

The Loan Syndications and Trading Association, Inc.

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

Does termination of a contract before the works are complete impact an employer’s ability to recover liquidated damages? This question was recently considered by the English Court of Appeal. The answer? It depends on the terms of the contract. However, it seems that many liquidated damages provisions, including those in currently used standard form construction contracts, may not apply at all on termination of the contract, leaving employers to prove a claim for general damages for delays suffered both before and after termination.