On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rendered its decision in Montréal (City) v.

7343 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun (“Değişiklik Kanunu”) 30 Kasım 2021 tarihli ve 31675 sayılı Resmî Gazete’de yayımlanarak aynı gün yürürlüğe girdi. Değişiklik Kanunu ile 2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu (“İİK”) kapsamında icra müdürlüklerinin organizasyon yapısı ile icranın geri bırakılması, hacizli malların satışı, kıymet takdiri ve ihalesi prosedürleri gibi hususlarda esaslı değişiklikler getirildi.

Değişiklik Kanunu’nda öne çıkan bazı düzenlemeler aşağıda özetlenmektedir:

Law numbered 7343 on the Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Certain Laws (“Amendment Law”) was published in Official Gazette dated 30 November 2021 and numbered 31675 and entered into effect on the same day. With the Amendment Law, fundamental changes on the organizational structure of execution offices as well as procedures of postponement of execution, and sale, valuation and tender of seized properties were introduced within the scope of Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law numbered 2004 (“EBL”).

Florida law provides that a UCC-1 financing statement is “seriously misleading” if it does not include the debtor’s correct name, unless “a search of the records of the filing office under the debtor’s correct name, using the filing office’s standard search logic, if any, would disclose” the financing statement notwithstanding the misnomer. But how much of a search is required?

In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.

Significance

Contents

On Dec. 16, 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District of New York vacated Purdue Pharma’s confirmed plan of reorganization after finding that the Bankruptcy Court below did not have statutory authority to issue a confirmation order granting non-consensual third-party releases — namely for the benefit of the Sackler family who owns Purdue. In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., Case No. 7:21-cv-08566 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021).

Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.

In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.

Key Takeaways

In brief

The Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act ("Act") received royal assent on 15 December 2021.

The Act extends the scope of powers available to the Insolvency Service to address the issue of directors dissolving companies to avoid paying their liabilities.

For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.