It is not uncommon for companies served with wind up proceedings to appoint external administrators for the purposes of investigating the affairs of the company and so that recommendations can be made to creditors to either have the company wound up, execute a deed of company arrangement or hand the company back into the control of directors.

In circumstances where the administrators conclude that the company should be wound up, it is common for the administrators to seek to be appointed as the official liquidators of the company.

In so far as they relates to creditor's statutory demands, the provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) are construed by the courts particularly prescriptively.

On 5 June 2015, His Honour Justice Brereton delivered judgment in In the matter of Unity Resources Group Australia Pty Limited [2015] NSWSC 1174. This is another example of the technical application of these sections by the court.

The Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth) requires the Commonwealth Government to pay outstanding superannuation, annual leave, redundancy and wages entitlements for eligible employees who have lost their jobs due to the liquidation or bankruptcy of their employers. It is generally recognised as an important safety net for employees, so that their superannuation is guaranteed.

On July 28, 2015, the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC provided guidance to 119 firms that will be filing updated resolution plans in December 2015. These firms include three nonbank financial companies: American International Group, Inc., Prudential Financial, Inc., and General Electric Capital Corporation. Based on a review of the plans submitted in 2014, the agencies have provided direction to each firm with respect to their upcoming resolution plans.

On June 29, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that claims asserted by counterparties in relation to bilateral repurchase agreements do not qualify for treatment as customer claims under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (“SIPA”).

In a May 4, 2015 opinion¹ , the United States Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 repayment plan is not a final order subject to immediate appeal. The Supreme Court found that, in contrast to an order confirming a plan or dismissing a case, an order denying confirmation of a plan neither alters the status quo nor fixes the rights and obligations of the parties. Although the decision arose in the context of a chapter 13 plan, it should apply with equal force to chapter 11 cases.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act) provides a regime by which a debtor can compromise with his/her creditors outside formal bankruptcy. The provisions are found in Part X (Personal Insolvency Agreements) and Part IX (Debt Agreements) of the Act.

DEBT AGREEMENTS

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

In a memorandum decision dated May 4, 2015, Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York affirmed the September 2014 decision of Judge Robert D. Drain of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming the joint plans of reorganization (the “Plan”) in the Chapter 11 cases of MPM Silicones LLC and its affiliates (“Momentive”). Appeals were taken on three separate parts of Judge Drain’s confirmation decision, each of which ultimately was affirmed by the district court:

DERIVATIVES/ASSET MANAGEMENT/FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISORY & FINANCIAL REGULATORY CLIENT PUBLICATION 12 May 2015 Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive – Implications for Repo and Derivative Counterparties The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)1 introduces an EU-wide regime for recovery and resolution planning for, and for resolution action to be taken in respect of, banks and large investment firms (typically the large sell-side institutions) (FIs)2.