In the 1500s, debtors in England would avoid paying their debts by transferring property to friends or family as a gift or for undervalue, move to a sanctuary such as church land, wait for their creditors to exhaust their efforts or come to a favourable settlement of the debt, and then return and take a re-transfer of the property. This was a fraud on the creditors.
To prevent this mischief, in 1571, Parliament enacted the Fraudulent Conveyances Act (13 Eliz I, c 5), known as the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, and in Australia, as the Elizabethan Statute. It provided:
One consequence of the depressed real estate market has been numerous Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases wherein the debtor seeks confirmation of a “dirt-for-debt” plan. In such a plan, instead of paying the secured creditor the value of the real property securing the debt through restructured loan terms, the debtor proposes to convey part or all of the real property securing the debt to the creditor in full satisfaction of its secured claim.
Can the Trustee in Bankruptcy claim an interest in the family home because the bankrupt is living there, even if the bankrupt is not registered on the title as an owner?
The short answer is yes: if the Trustee can prove a common intention constructive trust.
During the administration of a company, liquidators may identify creditors who have received payments in preference to other creditors, and apply to the court pursuant to section 588FF of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) to recover those payments in order to achieve a more equitable distribution amongst all creditors.
What constitutes a preferential payment?
In Esfahani v. Samimi, 2018 ONCA 516 the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a plaintiff pursuing a fraudulent conveyance or preference must recognize that the legal landscapes changes with a bankruptcy and that the effects of a bankruptcy filing cannot be ignored.
The importance of security holders accurately registering their interest on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to create a valid, enforceable interest is constantly emphasised in commentary and cases. It is accepted that an error in a grantor’s identifier is likely to be fatal to a PPSR registration1, often resulting in a creditor’s unperfected interest vesting in a company upon it entering administration or liquidation. However, a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court illustrates that a defective registration may be cured without losing priority.
Introduction
On 8 March 20111, the French Supreme Court issued an important decision for the restructuring, finance and private equity communities and their advisers in connection with the on-going litigation surrounding the Coeur Défense restructuring.
In Petroprod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Cayman Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) v Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 186 the Singapore High Court considered whether an action brought to avoid transactions that allegedly violated insolvency laws should be stayed in favour of arbitration.
During the past 14 months, courts in Ontario have rendered three decisions dealing with the application of limitation periods to claims for fraudulent conveyances or preferences. A “limitation period” is a period of time, specified in a statute, within which a plaintiff must commence a court proceeding to seek a remedy. Otherwise, the claim is said to be “statute-barred” and an action to enforce the claim will be dismissed.
The recent decisions have brought some clarity to the law in this area, but have left other questions unanswered.
Background
TheBankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c. B‐3 (the “BIA”) was recently amended to repeal the settlement and reviewable transaction sections of the Act, and replaced these sections with provisions regarding transfers under value and preferences. The aim of these new provisions is to prevent bankrupts from unfairly preferring certain creditors over others and to prevent bankrupts from transferring assets for significantly less than they are worth.