UN | PÉTROLE ET GAZ
Court of Appeal Clarifies the Tension Between Disclaimed Property and State Based Laws
On 9 March 2018, the Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the controversial first instance decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Linc Energy Pty Ltd (In Liquidation).[1]
The Court of Appeal’s judgement is significant, as it clarifies the position regarding:
The Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) (“Linc”) and given full effect to their disclaimer of contaminated mining property and onerous obligations the subject of an environmental protection order (“EPO”) issued by the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (“DES”).[1]
On June 6, 2017, Australian-based mining equipment supplier Emeco Holdings emerged from chapter 15 proceedings in the Southern District of New York following an Australian court’s sanctioning of the company’s scheme of arrangement.
The scheme of arrangement was a component of an innovative, comprehensive restructuring that provided for a three-way merger of three large Australian mining service companies and a restructuring of A$680 million of debt through a debt-for-equity swap, rights offering, and full refinancing.
One of the harbingers of the end of the mining boom in Western Australia was the collapse of the Forge Group in early 2014. Forge Group Ltd (Forge) and the companies associated with it were substantial players in the mining services sector. Towards the end of 2013 Forge went into an extended trading halt arising from concerns about its ability to meet debt covenants. In early 2014 the company announced that it had reached a deal with its bank, ANZ, which would “solve the liquidity issues and strengthen Forge Group’s balance sheet”.
Today the Queensland Supreme Court held that an insolvent company’s environmental obligations under State law were unaffected by the liquidators’ disclaimer of related property and resource tenures. This decision changes the previous understanding of liquidators’ powers and the order of priority in which claims will be paid in a liquidation, and may have broader implications for insolvent companies that are subject to obligations under State laws.
When we began analysing in depth the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, 18 months prior to the June 2016 referendum, the HERBERT businessSMITH FREEHILLS consensus w07as very muchSECTION TITLE that Brexit was a remote prospect that either would never happen or not matter.
Fast forward just over two years and the reality could not be more different. In this updated edition of our Brexit legal guide, we take stock of the present situation, summarising the key developments since last year's vote and what is to be expected in the months ahead. 10 33 99
Year in Review - Australia Law in 2016
‘Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .
Nobody knows, the way it feels
Caught between Heaven and the Highway
Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .’ 1
On 7 April 2016, Administrators were appointed to South Australian-based steelmaker and iron ore miner Arrium, which reportedly owed approximately AUD4.3 billion to its lenders, suppliers and staff. The appointment covered 94 direct and indirect subsidiaries of Arrium Limited (the Arrium Companies), which at the time employed around 8,100 employees and contractors.
There have been recent reports that APR Energy PLC has threatened the Australian Government with a demand for $200 million in damages based on a claim under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement after it lost its security interest in multi-million dollar wind turbines it leased to an Australian company due to the operation of a provision in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA).