On March 8, 2016, a New York Bankruptcy Court issued a bench decision in the Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation Chapter 11 case. The Court’s decision concerning a producer’s request to reject certain portions of its midstream agreements has sent shockwaves through the oil and gas industry. Although the decision is far more limited in scope than is being reported by many commentators and professionals, its impact may be far reaching.
By its much anticipated yet hardly surprising judgment in Forge Group Power Pty Limited (in liquidation)(receivers and managers appointed) v General Electric International Inc [2016] NSWSC 52, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has again shone a bright light on the importance of perfection of security interests under the PPSA, and the dramatic consequences that follow for failing to do so by reason of the PPSA vesting rules. Indeed, the failure to register in this case has had multi-million dollar consequences.
The decision in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 288 reinforces the strict rule that an application to set aside a statutory demand must be filed and served within 21 days of receiving the demand.
Statutory demands are a common and useful tool for many unsecured creditors seeking payment of a debt. Non-compliance with a statutory demand results in a presumption of insolvency and the possibility that a creditor can apply to wind up a company debtor.
The Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 has been introduced into Parliament as part of the Australian Government's strategy to modernise and strengthen the nation's insolvency and corporate reorganisation framework.
As part of a modernization project that was begun by the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules in 2008, most of the Official Bankruptcy Forms will be replaced with substantially revised, renumbered and reformatted versions, effective December 1, 2015 (New Forms). The New Forms were approved by the Judicial Conference on September 17, 2015.
Freezing orders and the Foreign Judgments Act
Freezing orders (also known as Mareva orders or Mareva injunctions) are oft-used tools available to a plaintiff to preserve the assets of a defendant, where there is a danger of the defendant absconding or of the assets being removed from the jurisdiction or otherwise diminished. Such dangers put in peril the ability of a plaintiff to recover any favourable judgment against that defendant.
Introduction
The Full Court of the Federal Court has given some important guidance on the calculation of remuneration for court appointed receivers. In its decision in Templeton v Australian Securities and Investment Commission the Court has highlighted the importance of proportionality in determining reasonable remuneration.
General Position
Jackie Ford, partner in the Vorys Houston and Columbus offices, authored an article for Law360 onwhether traditional definitions of property and ownership include social media accounts. The full text of the article is included below.
WHO OWNS LIKES, POSTS, PAGES AND TWEETS IN BANKRUPTCY?
- On 11 March 2015, the High Court delivered its decision in Fortress Credit & Anor v Fletcher & Ors [2015] HCA 10.
- The appellant was Fortress Credit.
- On 11 March 2015 the High Court delivered its decision in Grant Samuel & Ors v Fletcher & Ors [2015] HCA 8.
- The appellants were Grant Samuel Corporate Finance Pty Limited and JP Morgan Chase Bank.