Justice Robson’s decision in Re Amerind1 was one of a number of recent authorities which created doubt as to how the statutory insolvency regime, and in particular how the priority waterfall, should be applied to recoveries from trust assets.

JWS successfully protected the rights of the class action creditors to have their claims in the voluntary administration of SurfStitch Group Limited (SGL) valued appropriately, for the purposes of voting at the second meeting of creditors of SGL. Joseph Scarcella of JWS acts for Nakali Pty Limited (Nakali), the lead plaintiff in the first class action proceeding instituted against SGL.

In Re Atwell & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] VSC 683, Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered the application of the ‘proportionality’ principle in determining liquidator remuneration.

Background

In our previous publication on the subject, we had discussed the changes introduced by the Ordinance dated 23 November 2017 (the Ordinance), amending the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) (see our Ergo Newsflash dated 24 November 2017).

On 15 December 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) delivered a landmark judgment in Macquarie Bank v. Shilpi Cables, Civil Appeal 15135/2017 on whether Section 9(3)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code) is mandatory and whether a demand notice of an unpaid operational debt can be issued by a lawyer on behalf of the operational creditor. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Macquarie Bank against the judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (Appellate Tribunal) in Shilpi Cable Technologies v.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLAT) on 7 November 2017 passed a judgment in the case of M/s Speculum Plast Private Limited v. PTC Techno Private Limited, putting to rest the question of the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The present judgment comes in the wake of the decision of the NCLAT in Neelkanth Township and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

In a recent decision of M/s Ksheeraabd Constructions Private Limited v M/s Vijay Nirman Company Private Limited, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has held that proceedings pending under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) does not constitute a ‘dispute’ under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and cannot come in the way of initiation of the insolvency resolution process, in terms of Section 9 of the Code.

Background

Making sense of the purchase money security interest (PMSI) priority provisions in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) can be challenging for financiers and insolvency practitioners tasked with assessing the merits of competing security interest claims.

The recent judgment of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pluton Resources Ltd 1, concerns the interaction between a deed of company arrangement (‘DOCA’) under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘CA’) and the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (‘PPSA’).