Introduction

The Role of the Liquidator

Introduction

Judgment by Cregan J of 6 October 2014

Overview

This case concerned an application by the official liquidator of RQB Limited (in liquidation) (the Company) pursuant to S280 of Companies Act 1963 to determine the legal status of a floating charge dated 10 September 2008 which entered into by the Company in favour of Danske Bank (the Bank) and which the liquidator believes to be unenforceable.

Background

The "2005 Facility"

Introduction

Change of name

Choice of law

Introduction

On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit^[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.

On June 17, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals¹ vacated a District Court’s dismissal order and resuscitated a bankruptcy appeal brought by a group of litigation creditors seeking recourse against the debtors post-confirmation.² The Third Circuit opinion is an important reminder to both debtors and creditors that the doctrine of “equitable mootness” has limits and that confirmation of a plan does not preclude review of post-confirmation actions inconsistent with obligations in the plan.

Introduction
Procedural background
Facts
Statute of limitations
Actual fraudulent conveyance
Settlement
Comment

Introduction
Background
Third Circuit's majority opinion
Dissent
Analysis
Successor claims as property of the estate