This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Invesus Group Limited [2024] NSWSC 867). Justice Ball determined that admission of a proof of debt by a liquidator was not akin to a judgment or settlement, and that such an admission did not create a new liability of the company.
In a decision delivered on 7 June 2024 (2024TALCH02/00950) (the Decision), the Luxembourg District Court provided for substantive clarifications regarding article 10 of the Luxembourg Law of 7 August 2023 on the continuation of businesses and modernisation of insolvency law (the Restructuring Law). This article empowers the Court to appoint judicial agents (mandataires de justice) in case of serious and aggravated misconduct (manquements graves et caractérisés) by the debtor or its corporate bodies, threatening the continuity of the business.
In In the matter of Academy Construction & Development Pty Ltd (subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2024] NSWSC 808, the New South Wales Supreme Court had to determine whether to terminate a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) on the basis that it was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory.
Key Takeaways
In Davis-Jacenko v Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 702, McGrath J delivered an extempore decision, appointing provisional liquidators in respect of Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited (theCompany). His Honour stated that it was “a paradigm case” for the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.
Key Takeaways
On July 2, 2024, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia (the “Court”) released its highly anticipated decision in British Columbia v. Peakhill Capital Inc., 2024 BCCA 246 (“Peakhill”) concerning the use of reverse vesting orders (“RVOs”) to effect sale transactions structured to avoid provincial property transfer taxes for the benefit of creditors.
Op 27 mei 2024 is het Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement in internetconsultatie gegaan (de WOVOF). De WOVOF beoogt de werknemersbescherming bij faillissement te vergroten, met name in geval van een doorstart. De WOVOF introduceert onder andere een verplichting voor de doorstarter om (in beginsel) alle werknemers uit de failliete onderneming over te nemen. Deze en andere maatregelen worden in dit nieuwsbericht nader toegelicht.
Huidige regeling en aanleiding WOVOF
On 27 May 2024, the draft bill on transfer of undertaking in bankruptcy (in Dutch: Wetsvoorstel overgang van onderneming in faillissement, the WOVOF) was made available for internet consultation. The WOVOF aims to increase the protection of employees in case of bankruptcy, and more particular, in case of a restart (in Dutch: doorstart). The WOVOF introduces, amongst other things, an obligation for the acquirer in a restart to (in principle) offer employment to all employees from the bankrupt company. This and other measures will be discussed in detail in this this news blog.
In this week’s TGIF, we examine the High Court’s recent decision in Greylag Goose Leasing 1410 Designated Activity Company & Anor v P T Garuda Indonesia Ltd [2024] HCA 21. In the decision, a majority of the High Court upheld the New South Wales Court of Appeal decision that foreign state immunity extends to a state-owned national airline subject to winding-up proceedings.
Many litigators and corporate lawyers view the practice of representing a large shareholder and the company in which it is invested as common practice. In many instances, no conflict of interest will ever materialize such that the shareholder and the company require separate representation. However, in a recent opinion rendered by the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”), a large international law firm (the “Firm”) was disqualified from representing Enviva Inc.
In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525), Justice Black determined that a payment made by a third party was not an unfair preference because the payment did not diminish assets available to creditors.
Key Takeaways