Lenders Beware: Security Vulnerable as an unreasonable director-related transaction

Cooper as Liquidator of Runtong Investment and Development Pty Limited) v CEG Director Securities Pty Limited [2024] FCA 6. ("CEG")

Introducción

Esta edición de las píldoras concursales, como ya es tradicional, incluye sentencias hechas públicas en los meses de diciembre y enero. Preferimos no enviarlas ahora en lugar de a finales de diciembre porque creemos este es mejor momento para su lectura.

In the first Part 26A appeal decision since the inception of the restructuring plan in 2020, the Court of Appeal has set aside the restructuring plan sanction order that was granted to German real estate group, Adler.

Fiduciary Duties of Receivers

Receivers appointed to enforce a security owe their fiduciary duties to their appointor and not to the mortgagor. So, when realising the assets of the mortgagor, the receivers can focus their attention on pursuing that course of action which, as they judge it, is best calculated to optimise the position of their appointor; Salmon v Albarran [2023] NSWSC 1238 ("Salmon").

Following the Government's response to the UNCITRAL consultation (see our briefing here) - which suggests that, for a while at least, the rule in Gibbs is here to stay - we expect to see an increase in parallel proceedings being used when multijurisdictional corporate groups seek to restructure their debt.

Introducción

En las píldoras concursales de este mes destacamos:

The law of 7 August 2023 on business preservation and modernisation of bankruptcy law (the Law) will enter into force on 1 November 2023.

In addition to introducing certain amendments to the existing insolvency framework, the Law implements EU Directive 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks.

Scope

The Law applies to all types of commercial companies and traders (commerçants), including special limited partnerships.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a second appeal, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decisions of two lower Courts in concluding that due to the conduct of a bankrupt and his insolvency, his bankruptcy should not (on an exercise of discretion) be annulled, despite concluding that the bankruptcy order should not have been made.

Khan v Singh-Sall and another [2023] EWHC 1119 (Ch)

What are the practical implications of this case?

Under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), office-holders are given wide powers but they are subject to the control of the court. In order to allow insolvency practitioners to carry out their duties efficiently and without having constantly to look over their shoulders, this control has always been exercised with a light touch. In recent years there have been several important cases examining these issues.[1]

After the tumult of the past few years, with emergency legislation being introduced to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the last few months have felt relatively quiet in terms of new legislation. That said, there have been a number of important government publications in relation to the insolvency industry, and it appears that change is on the horizon.