The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).
Summary. The Pensions Regulator (the Regulator) has issued a statement on regulated apportionment arrangements (RAA) and employer insolvency (the statement).
Distressed M&A
Any downturn tends to produce a surge of distressed m&A opportunities, and the current crisis will be no different. Investments in distressed companies follow a different set of rules to "normal" m&A transactions, bringing additional complexity in terms of the stakeholders involved and deal structuring, as well as particular set of challenges for due diligence and buyer protections.
Introduction
The concept of winding up does not exclusively apply to insolvent companies. Solvent companies can also be wound up, on the initiation of the company’s directors and shareholders (for example, as part of a corporate reconstruction or to close down non-operating or redundant entities).
An overview of the two key procedures to effect the dissolution of a solvent Australian company, being Members’ Voluntary Liquidation and Deregistration, is set out below.
In a recent decision 9354-9186 Québec inc. v. Callidius Capital Corp, 2020 SCC 10 , the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that:
In this type of market environment, one or more of the following scenarios may apply:
Introduction
In brief
In brief
Courts have recently approved a number of means by which external administrators can realise value from insolvent agricultural managed investment schemes and deal with the rights of growers and sponsor creditors:
There have recently been a number of significant developments in relation to schemes of arrangement. These include:
- the Federal Court refusing to make orders convening a meeting of CSR’s shareholders to vote on a demerger proposal by way of scheme, on public policy and commercial morality grounds relating to CSR’s potential asbestos liabilities
- the Government’s corporate law advisory body recommending significant reforms to the scheme regime, and
- developments regarding ‘hostile schemes’.
Each of these developments is discussed below.