Executive Summary

In a radical departure from settled case law, the English High Court has eroded the protections of English law creditors guaranteed by the Rule in Gibbs¹ .

I. INTRODUCTION

This week’s Dekagram examines what happens when rules change: that transitional period between one set of rules and another, when no one is quite sure what’s happening. We seem to have had quite a few of those recently; just as we were getting over the horrors of the Withdrawal Act, along came the changes to the Fixed Recoverable Costs regime – changes which, we remind readers, remain in a state of flux, notwithstanding that the new regime is now in force.

Res Judicata and Rule Changes

The Privy Council has considered the question of whether an agreement to settle disputes arising out of a shareholders' agreement by arbitration prevents a party to the agreement pursuing a petition to wind up the company on just and equitable grounds.

Background

In a case where the Liquidator after issuing the certificate that the appellant had won the auction of the subject property, cancelled the e-auction without giving any justification or reason for such cancellation, the Supreme Court has stated that it is incomprehensible that an administrative authority can take a decision without disclosing the reasons for taking such a decision.

Table of Contents

“courts agree that . . . evaluating, asserting, pursuing, and defending litigation claims . . . can satisfy Section 1182(1)(A)’s requirement of ‘commercial or business activities.’”

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (“Court”) confirmed a plan for a cannabis-related business (“Debtor”) to sell its equity interests in a Canadian cannabis company, Lowell Farms, and distribute the proceeds to its creditors.

The judgments of the Federal Court of Australia and the Full Federal Court in Sino Group International Limited v Toddler Kindy Gymbaroo Pty Ltd ^[1] provide important practical lessons arising from a misleading Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) proposal, its termination, and the subsequent appointment of a liquidator.