A case study of W Y Steel Construction Pte Ltd v Tycoon Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2016] SGHC 80

Overview

Section 38 provides a mechanism by which a creditor can take the place of the trustee in any proceeding where the trustee refuses or fails to act. Essentially, the creditor stands in the place of the trustee and, if successful in the proceeding, is entitled to keep all proceeds, except those that exceed the total of the creditor’s claim and the creditor’s costs of the proceeding. Any surplus proceeds received by the creditor are the property of the bankrupt’s estate.

Recovery of legal costs in insolvency proceedings can be a difficult procedure, as the ability of counsel to claim costs depends on the work performed, the timing of the work, and for whom the work was done.

The business community in Russia is going to see an increase in default claims due to the mounting credit crisis. Many companies will not survive in such an environment and a wave of insolvencies is likely to ensue. The prospect of this has forced the State Duma to focus on developing a robust response. New bills, which would transform the Russian insolvency landscape, are currently under consideration.

The business community is going to see an increase in default claims due to the mounting credit crisis. Many companies will not survive in such an environment and a wave of insolvencies is likely to ensue. The prospect of this has forced the State Duma to focus on developing a robust response. New bills, which would transform the Russian insolvency landscape, are currently under consideration.

In Mendlowitz & Associates Inc. v. Chiang, an Order was granted in 2006 compelling the bankrupt and others to attend for an examination by the trustee under section 163(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada). In 2008, the trustee applied under the same section to examine the bankrupt and others again.

Section 163(1) of the BIA provides:

In Father & Son Investments Inc. v. Maverick Brewing Corp. (2007), 2007 CarswellAlta 1452 (Alta. Q.B.), Maverick Brewing Corporation (“Maverick”) operated a brewery in Edmonton in space leased from Five Oaks Inc. (“Five Oaks”). The two major creditors of Maverick were Father & Son Investments Inc. (“Father & Son”) and Five Oaks. Pursuant to a postponement and subordination of security interest document, Five Oaks had priority over Father & Son to the assets of Maverick.

Deep Purple was, and still is, a rock music band. Its members included Mr Gillan, Mr Glover and Mr Paice. In 2005, band members entered into an agreement with HEC Enterprises Limited (HEC) and Deep Purple (Overseas) Limited (DPO). Under that agreement, the parties agreed to form a new company named Purpletuity, to which various copyrights and other assets were to be transferred. In 2015, Mr Gillan, Mr Glover and Mr Paice commenced proceedings against HEC and DPO to enforce that agreement.

In a recent costs decision, the English High Court partly disallowed an indemnity sought by receivers in respect of costs payable to certain third parties and the receivers' own costs and expenses for certain steps.

The recent New South Wales Supreme Court decision In re MF Global Australia Ltd (in liq) No 2 [2012] NSWSC 1426 confirmed that the remuneration, costs and expenses incurred by liquidators in preserving, recovering and realising trust assets should be paid out of the trust property generally, rather than being restricted to assets held on trust for the benefit of the company itself.