Your former employee sues you, but your employee-plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. You diligently research the bankruptcy filings and discover the employee did not disclose the lawsuit against you in those filings, which are sworn to under oath. You might have a winner to get out of the case, right? Well, it is not quite that simple, according to a recent ruling in Georgia.
The recently announced proposed insolvency reforms draw on key features from Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States and aim to help more small businesses restructure and survive the economic impact of COVID-19.
The reforms will cover around 76% of businesses subject to insolvencies today, 98% of whom have less than 20 employees.[1]
In March, we reported that, as part of a suite of legislative and economic responses to COVID-19 the Commonwealth Government had announced a range of temporary amendments to certain insolvency laws. The amendments were aimed at temporarily amending insolvency laws, affecting in turn corporate governance, and directors’ duties.
Recently, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. De C.V. v. North Mill Capital, LLC; Leisawitz Heller, the Third Circuit held that creditors can pursue claims of the bankruptcy estate that have been abandoned by the trustee.
In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.
In the recent Gunns decisions, the Federal Court considered three separate unfair preference claims brought by the liquidators of Gunns Limited (in Liquidation) (Gunns) against:
Earlier this year, Chapter 11’s new Subchapter V became a part of the Bankruptcy Code when the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) became effective.
In practice, it is not uncommon for bankruptcy debtors to file suit against creditors or debt collectors for stay and discharge injunction violations. Often, they will do so before making any meaningful attempt to communicate with the creditor or debt collector to request that they stop their improper collection efforts.
Recent changes to the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) (Act) have simplified the process for mortgagees exercising power of sale and do away with the need for a Court order.
Previously, a mortgagee was required to apply to a Court for a vesting order allowing it to exercise power of sale and to dispense with the requirement to give a Notice of Exercise of Power of Sale to the mortgagor.