DoCA’s: Discriminating between Creditors -Is it for a Proper Purpose
Canstruct Pty Limited v Project Sea Dragon Pty Limited (No. 4) [2024] FCA 112 ("Canstruct")
TO BE OR NOT TO BE (SOLVENT) - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE, UK, US, AND AUSTRALIA ON RECOGNISING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW PIERRE DZAKPASU, ANNE JESUDASON, FLORENCE LI The recent case of Ascentra Holdings, Inc v. SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32 (Ascentra) has drawn a line in the sand in the Singapore court's interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law), as incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to create the Singapore Model Law.
Legal proceedings need to be filed before the end of any relevant limitation period, otherwise they will be time-barred — often irreparably. There are various reasons why a person may delay commencing proceedings – for example, they may be waiting on litigation funding before prosecuting their claim or need more time to gather evidence in order to decide whether to proceed.
The Porter Davis liquidation in early 2023 put into sharp focus the practice of some builders taking deposits from owners before obtaining domestic building insurance for their work, insurance that helps to protect owners in the event of a builder’s insolvency.
In the case of Porter Davis, this practice left thousands of owners without insurance to recover the loss of their deposits, leading the State Government to implement a relief scheme to compensate home owners over $28 million, later extended to 20 February 2024 and expanded to other builders in liquidation.
Bankruptcy litigation can stem well beyond the primary bankruptcy proceedings. Continued litigation may be born out of disputes between bankrupts, bankruptcy trustees and other interested parties in respect of methods of asset liquidation.
The decision in RPPS v Brookfield is the first recorded instance of s 151 of the PPSA being enforced (with a $30,000 penalty imposed for an improper registration). It serves as a caution to those making spurious registrations, but reasonably diligent and responsible parties should have no cause for alarm.
Overview of section 151 of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009
In a proceeding brought by Mr Curran, in his capacity as the trustee for June Ellen Investment Trust (Plaintiff), to wind up Fitzgerald Housing Limited (formerly known as Kay Fitzgerald Housing Charity Limited) (Defendant), the New South Wales Supreme Court considered whether it was necessary to adjourn the winding up proceeding to allow the Defendant to advance a small business restructuring process (Restructuring).
The decision in RPPS v Brookfield is the first recorded instance of s 151 of the PPSA being enforced (with a $30,000 penalty imposed for an improper registration). It serves as a caution to those making spurious registrations, but reasonably diligent and responsible parties should have no cause for alarm.
The Supreme Court of NSW refused to validate the appointment of a voluntary administrator (Administrator) to Premier Energy Resources Pty Ltd (Company) under section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) after the Administrator failed to investigate allegations of fraud surrounding his appointment.
In Mergermarket’s 2023 Global & Regional M&A Rankings, Hamilton Locke ranked 6th in Australia for the highest volume of M&A deals, with 69 deals valued at USD738 million. This is the firm’s highest Mergermarket ranking and a significant jump from 13th place in 2022.