One could almost be forgiven for thinking that nowadays delayed second creditors' meetings are just par for the course.
Applications to extend the time for the second meeting - often for months - have become quite routine, and are rarely (if ever) refused.
Some observers might thus wonder if we are losing sight of one of the objectives of the VA procedure - that it "should be expeditious".[1]
Although the Australian voluntary administration regime served as the model for the UK administration system, one notable difference has emerged between the two systems: pre-packs.
Pre-packs – the use of a statutory insolvency regime to implement a pre-agreed debt / corporate restructuring – have not really taken off in Australia. In the UK, of course, they form a significant proportion of all administrations.
The statutory exemption can be refreshed each time a person signs a new contract, even if he/she continues to hold the same position.
Receivers of a failed company have been unable to convince the Federal Court that statutory restrictions on termination payments reduced the payout entitlement of a senior executive (White v Norman; In the Matter of Forest Enterprises Australia Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Administration) [2012] FCA 33).
Background
Australia needs to rein in ipso facto clauses in order to develop a turnaround culture for financially troubled companies.
Within hours of Kodak's move into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the internet was alive with bad jokes:
"Kodak's business didn't develop the way they expected."
"Kodak was overexposed to the GFC."
"Kodak's Chapter 11 hearing was held in camera."
Australian businesses and liquidators might be forgiven for thinking that the bigger joke is Australia's lack of a Chapter 11 turnaround culture.
Summary and implications
This note provides a short summary of receivership and covers some of the most frequently asked questions. The note is intended to be a general overview and specific advice should be taken in individual cases.
The appointment of a receiver is one of the formal enforcement options typically available to lenders who have security over property assets situated in England and Wales. The receiver’s job is to realise those assets and use the proceeds to discharge the debt due to the charge-holder.
This appeal was brought by the insolvency practitioners dealing with the Nortel and Lehman Brothers companies. The Regulator’s Determinations Panel has, in relation to both the Nortel and Lehman Brothers pension schemes, issued warning notices of its intention to issue Financial Support Directions (FSDs) against group companies.
The European Commission has opened an in-depth investigation into plans to restructure the Royal Mail.
The UK Supreme Court, which is the UK's highest court, has handed down its long-awaited decision in Belmont Park Investments Pty Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38, in which the Court considered the validity and enforceability of so-called "flip" clauses under English bankruptcy law.
On 17 May 2011, the GC annulled a Commission decision requiring recovery of state aid from Polish steel producer Technologie Buczek (TB). The case concerned the actions taken by the Polish authorities in implementing a plan to restructure the steel industry. The GC found that the Commission had been correct to find that TB had benefited from a decision by the Polish authorities not to apply for bankruptcy but to allow the company to continue to operate without repaying its debts.
The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.
This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.
Background