On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of  Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.

Appointing a provisional liquidator

Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.

Overarching eligibility

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?

On January 17, 2020, Justice Romaine of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that the Alberta Securities Commission’s (the “ASC”) administrative penalties against Theodor Hennig (“Hennig”) survived Hennig’s discharge in bankruptcy. This decision marks the first time a Canadian court has considered securities regulatory penalties within the context of subsection 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”).

Commercial bankruptcy practice in the United States is governed by Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code. The focus of Chapter 11 is assisting a distressed company to reorganize its debts to emerge as a going concern or liquidate its assets as part of an orderly wind-down. In this article, we highlight the key benefits available to a Chapter 11 debtor and describe the various stages of a case, including statutory requirements, and types of plans.

The Dutch legislator has published a bill for a new pre-insolvency tool, which seeks to combine the best of the UK scheme of arrangement and the US Chapter 11 procedure. The new legislation will be formally called 'The Act regarding the binding approval of debt restructuring agreements'. Among restructuring professionals it is already widely referred to as the WHOA (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord) or the "Dutch Scheme". Currently, the WHOA is pending final approval by the Dutch parliament and is expected to enter into force on 1 July 2020.

As the name suggests, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (Model Law) seeks to address complexities caused where insolvencies cross borders, while leaving substantive insolvency laws of each country largely unaltered. However, as jurisdictions continue to adopt and interpret the Model Law, inconsistencies in its application are coming to light.

In the recent decision of Boensch as Trustee of the Boensch Trust v Scott Darren Pascoe [2019] HCA 49, the High Court has clarified whether property held by a bankrupt on trust for another vests in the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy, and the circumstances in which a trustee in bankruptcy will have reasonable cause to lodge a caveat to protect an interest in the trust property.

Background

• Az Igazságügyi Minisztérium 2018-ban látott hozzá az új Fizetésképtelenségi Törvény előkészítéséhez, amely kapcsán erős szakmai igények fogalmazódtak meg – többek között a reorganizáció elősegítését vagy a hitelezők nagyobb arányú megtérítését illetően.
• A 2019 nyarán hatályba lépett Szerkezetátalakítási Irányelv lehetőséget biztosít egy eddig a magyar jogban nem létező eljárás, az ún.

In the recent decision of In the matter of Parkway One Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1495 (Parkway), Rees J dismissed an application to terminate the winding up of Parkway One Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company) due to inconclusive evidence as to the solvency of the Company and, having regard to the non-compliance by its director of her statutory duties and the likelihood of the Company not being able to service the current and foreseen indebtedness, her Honour held that it would be contrary to commercial morality to terminate the wi