On 24 December 2020, the Federal Court of Australia published reasons for a decision in which I appeared for the liquidators of two related companies, Bestjet Travel Pty Ltd (in liq) and Wynyard Travel Pty Ltd (in liq). The decision can be accessed here.
Key points
- Directors have been temporarily relieved of their duty to prevent insolvent trading during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- That relief is scheduled to expire on 31 December 2020.
- Many commentators believe that directors can only avail themselves of the temporary relief if they appoint a liquidator or administrator before the moratorium expires.
- Directors of companies at risk of insolvency should seek legal advice regarding their potential liability.
The Government’s response to the pandemic
Il est notoire que le contrat, en raison de son caractère obligatoire, sera considéré comme étant la loi des parties [1].
Historically, an assignment of claims pursuant to s. 38 of Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”)[1] has only been used in the context of an assignment in bankruptcy. For instance, the use of s.
Australia’s ageing population has driven innovation in delivering housing solutions for retirees and elderly alike. As a nation of sports fanatics who also love nature and green open spaces, it is no surprise that there has been a steadily increasing trend to co-locate retirement living with recreational facilities such as golf courses, bowls clubs and other recreational clubs.
HopgoodGanim has been fortunate enough to have acted for a number of retirement village operators (scheme operators) and clubs with respect to co-location projects in Queensland.
In its most recent decision, Chandos Construction Ltd v Deloitte Restructuring Inc.[1], the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) reaffirmed the existence of the common law anti-deprivation rule in Canada.
On July 27, 2020, the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court (the “Court”) released its decision in Great North Data Ltd., (Re),[1] where Justice Handrigan outlined principles for courts to consider when exercising their power under section 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in the receivership proceedings of The Clover on Yonge Inc.[1] (the “Clover Project”) has addressed the question of whether a debtor in receivership can avoid a sales process by redeeming its outstanding debt.
Corporate ventures are usually founded with the very best intentions, but as matters unfold disputes between investors are all too common.
The legal steps to resolve such disputes and assert control over a company can be complex and arduous.
However, there are good reasons for this due process, and it cannot be circumvented.
A recent decision in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) proceedings of Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.[1] (“Bellatrix”) serves as a useful reminder to professionals that a