A recent Federal Court decision puts administrators on notice that they must carefully consider the consequences of dealing with other people’s assets.
The decision of Justice Perram in White, in the matter of Mossgreen Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2018] FCA 471, highlights the care that administrators must take when administering property outside the scope of their authority.
In Mossgreen, administrators were appointed to a company that conducted a business that ran an auction house and gallery.
There are unique and competing interests between the United States Bankruptcy Code1 and federal and state environmental laws. One of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Code is to allow a debtor to have a "fresh start." On the other hand, environmental laws are intended to require responsible parties to comply with environmental standards for the protection of human health and the environment. As a result of these competing interests, there has been extensive litigation related to the interplay between the bankruptcy and environmental regimes.
What you need to know in light of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq)
The NSW Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in the matter of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq); Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (in liq) v Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd [2018] NSWSC 412, in which K&L Gates represented Seymour Whyte. The decision sheds light on numerous issues, including:
On 9 March 2018, in what was a highly anticipated judgment for many liquidators, the Queensland Court of Appeal reversed the controversial first instance Supreme Court decision in the matter of Linc Energy Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)1.
Background
Shortly prior to the appointment of liquidators to Linc Energy Limited (in Liquidation) (Linc) in May 2016, the Department of Environment & Heritage Protection (Department) issued an environmental protection order (EPO) to Linc in relation to its coal seam gas project at Chinchilla in Queensland.
FASHION LAW “Style is something each of us already has, all we need to do is find it.” – Diane von Furstenberg MARCH 2018 2 | K&L Gates: Fashion Law November 2017 Welcome to another packed edition of Fashion Law! Time has flown by and as we march through 2018, we are proud to continue our long standing sponsorship of the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival (VAMFF). The Festival is a celebration of Australian designers and our rich fashion heritage, showcasing Australian talent on an international stage.
Last year the government introduced the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency regime for over three decades. Among other changes, reforms that will come into effect on 1 July this year (or earlier by proclamation) will have a significant impact on the ability for counterparties to exercise certain rights under contractual provisions known as ipso facto clauses.
On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision that will increase the exposure of debt and equity investors that receive payments from all kinds of highly leveraged transactions, including leveraged buy-outs and dividend recapitalizations. The unanimous opinion in Merit Management Group, LP v.
The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.
The law is now clear. Or is it?
For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.
If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?
This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday, 22 February.
In the five years to November 2017, AUD1.8 billion of GST revenue was written-off due to phoenixing – where companies are stripped of assets and liquidated, then restarted under a different name leaving creditors out of pocket.
The Ninth Circuit recently limited the availability of diversity jurisdiction for certain cases with claims involving mortgage loan modifications. Specifically, in Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., the Ninth Circuit held that, where the plaintiff-borrower “seeks only a temporary stay of foreclosure pending review of a loan modification application … the value of the property or amount of indebtedness are not the amounts in controversy.” — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 6601872, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017).