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
- 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.
The Senate has announced a national inquiry into insolvency in the Australian construction industry (Inquiry).[1]
In two recent decisions, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York adopted an interpretation of Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”) that may complicate future exchange offers and, in some cases, force bond restructurings that might otherwise have been completed out-of-court to be effectuated through a bankruptcy filing.1 In Marblegate Asset Management v.
In another major development in a case that continues to redefine the standard procedures in asbestos-related bankruptcy proceedings, on January 13, 2015, Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC announced that it had reached an agreement with the representative for future asbestos claimants that would settle all present and future asbestos claims for $358 million. The current net present value of the settlement is reportedly $205 million – considerably higher than the bankruptcy court’s liability estimate of $125 million, but well below the $1.3 billion plaintiffs had been seeking.
In the lead up to peak periods, many businesses come under financial pressure due to various internal and external factors. Seasonal sales may not have been as planned and provision needs to be made for employee holiday pay.
In In re BGI, Inc. f/k/a/ Borders Group, Inc.,1 the Second Circuit recently held that the doctrine of equitable mootness — a doctrine that permits appellate courts to refrain from hearing bankruptcy appeals relating to plan confirmation when it would be “inequitable” to do so – applies in liquidations under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. This ruling extends the doctrine from Chapter 11 reorganizations, in which it has traditionally been applied in the Second Circuit, to liquidations.
On 7 November 2014 the Government released the Insolvency Law Reform Bill.
The Bill comprises of a package of proposals aimed at amending and streamlining the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and the Corporations Act 2001. It also contains proposals to reform how liquidators are registered and regulated.
Requirements to become a liquidator
Of particular interest to practitioners are the changes to the way new liquidators will become registered.