The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent disclaimer of the lease.
Background
A recent Victorian case has worrying implications for financiers and creditors.
A decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Vasudevan v Becon Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14 has the potential to significantly broaden the power of a liquidator to attack a company transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) where there are ‘indirect benefits’ to a director or close associate of a director of the company.
Obtain advice before you lodge a proof of debt or vote in a liquidation
Secured creditors should remember that submitting a proof of debt and voting in a liquidation may result in the loss of their security if they get it wrong.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has delivered a timely reminder to secured creditors of a company in liquidation, where the secured creditor lost its security because it submitted a proof of debt for the full amount of its debt and voted on a poll at a creditor’s meeting for its full debt.
Whether insurer liable to repay purchasers’ deposits following dissolution of developer/policy interpretation
Liquidators are commonly appointed to a company where, prior to liquidation the company was a trustee of a trust. Often when the liquidators are appointed, the company has ceased to be the trustee and a replacement trustee has not been appointed.
In these circumstances, the company in liquidation is a bare trustee in relation to the trust assets and the liquidator will assume this role until a replacement trustee is appointed. Often a replacement trustee is not appointed.
Does the liquidator as bare trustee have a power to sell trust assets?
Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:
On 21 October 2013, the financially troubled company Hainan PO Shipping applied for bankruptcy and winding up before the People’s Court of Hainan Yangpu Economic & Development Zone (“Yangpu Court”). The Yangpu Court approved the application on 31 October 2013, and the Court has since nominated the administrators of Hainan PO Shipping.
If your terms of trade documents don’t have the correct provisions, you can lose goods supplied to a customer that becomes insolvent, even though you may have title to the goods.
A recent Supreme Court decision highlights the need for retention of title suppliers to have adequate terms of trade documents and to register security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to avoid losing assets if a customer becomes insolvent.
A December 2012 ruling has effectively called into question the validity of engine leases in Denmark. Ruling in relation to the bankrupt regional airline Cimber Sterling, a judge in the District Court of Sønderborg ordered the trustees of the estate to return seven of the nine engines in question to the engine lessors. However, the two remaining engines, both GE CF34s valued at around USD 2 million each, were to be retained by the trustees as on the date of bankruptcy they had been affixed to the Bombardier CRJ200 aircraft for over three months.
A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia has found that the arrest of vessels pursuant to existing security rights, such as maritime liens under Australian admiralty legislation, have priority over cross-border insolvency applications under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
Introduction