Last Friday Derrington J in the Federal Court in Queensland tackled this question which remains unresolved in Australia, in Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Commissioner of Taxation (No 3) [2018] FCA 1572.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Simpson & Anor v Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] QCA 274 in which the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a disposition of property by a company after the commencement of its winding up was void
BACKGROUND
Mr Simpson was the sole director and shareholder of Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (company). It had operated a successful business until that business was sold in 2009. After the sale, the company did not trade.
2010 SCC 60 (Released 16 December 2010)
Bankruptcy and Insolvency – Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act – Priorities
In the first decision of the Supreme Court of Canada considering the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”), the court discusses the principles of interpretation for the CCAA. Apart from its importance in that respect, the decision is also of interest for its discussion of statutory interpretation, particularly with respect to statutory amendments.
In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.
MF Global UK Limited In Special Administration
The Financial Services Authority (“FSA”) has confirmed that MF Global UK Limited (“MF Global UK”) has entered the Special Administration Regime created under the Investment Bank Special Administration Regulations 2011 (“Regulations”).1 MF Global UK is the first investment bank to enter the Special Administration Regime. The decision to apply for special administration was initiated by the board of MF Global UK.
To avoid an asset reverting to a bankrupt after the end of his period of bankruptcy, the asset must be realised. An assignment of a beneficial interest for a future price does not amount to a realisation.
The absence of an intention to put assets out of the reach of creditors will thwart applications under the Insolvency Act to set declarations of trust or transfers aside.
The court will not assist a former bankrupt to enforce his interests under an unlawful trust where the purpose of the trust initially had been to deprive the trustee in bankruptcy of the bankrupt's interest.
It is over 10 years since the House of Lords decision in the case of Sharp v Thomson (1997 SC (HL) 44) threw a judicial cat amongst the pigeons of property and insolvency law in Scotland. The House of Lords, overturning decisions of both the Outer and Inner Houses of the Court of Session, decided that ownership of a property passed unencumbered by, in this case, a crystallised floating charge, even though the disposition of that property (which had been delivered before the floating charge crystallised) had not yet been registered in the Property Register.
On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).