This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Habibi Waverton (in liquidation) (administrator appointed) [2021] NSWSC 1443, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in which the Court opted to use its general powers to allow a voluntary administrator to transfer shares without the owner’s consent to implement a DOCA.
Key Takeaways
Government of Montenegro enacted a Bill on amendments of the Bankruptcy Law, in an effort to make the bankruptcy proceedings more efficient and straightforward, but it also offers significant amendments to the provisions regulating bankruptcy administrators’ appointment and status.
In the matter of 1A Eden Pty Limited [2021] NSWSC 82 the Court considered whether a disagreement between directors was solemn enough to wind up the company.
P, a director, applied to wind up a company that was the trustee of a unit trust.
P’s fellow directors were S and D. P said there was a deadlock and relations between them had broken down.
P and S were builders. D was a property developer. The 3 agreed to found the Co to develop a site together with P and S to share 50% of the profits and D to take the remaining half as unit holders.
On 12 May 2021, The Rating (Coronavirus) and Director Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Bill was introduced to Parliament.
The Bill passed through the Commons stages unaltered and recently passed the Committee stage at the House of Lords on 10 November 2021. The Report stage will be taking place on 1 December 2021.
Purpose of the Bill
On August 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a confirmation order appeal as equitably moot.[1] The doctrine of equitable mootness can require dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision – typically, an order confirming a chapter 11 plan – on equitable grounds when third parties have engaged in significant irreversible transactions
Credit risk issues permeate supply chain relationships in both directions. Current circumstances seem to exacerbate these considerations as the supply chain and pervasive pandemic effects continue to impact all sectors at all levels. The following outline identifies some potential problems and possible solutions related to selling to and buying from companies that are insolvent, or in danger of becoming so.
THE GAMES
With Customers: Should you sell on a secured or unsecured basis?
(Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel; Emanuel v Promontoria (Oak) Ltd; Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra; Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor; Bibby Invoice Discounting Ltd v Thompson Facilities and Project Management Services Ltd & Anor)
Introduction
This morning, the Court of Appeal has handed down landmark guidance on how far a defendant in litigation can look under the bonnet of their pursuer's commercial transactional documents and check out the mechanical parts of a deal to which the defendant is not party.
In two recent judgments, the Hong Kong companies court has set out the principles applicable to winding up companies holding operating subsidiaries in the mainland through intermediate subsidiaries incorporated offshore, most commonly in the BVI. In doing so, the Honourable Mr. Justice Harris highlighted the need for the petitioner to demonstrate a "real and discernible benefit" to creditors, something which will be challenging to prove if the company’s centre of main interests is not in Hong Kong.
This year’s 1 Chancery Lane Autumn Bumper Briefing takes as its theme – what else? – Covid-19 and its consequences. Some two years after the virus was first identified, and just over eighteen months since the first lockdown began, the courts are starting to deal with cases arising out of the pandemic and the measures taken to contain it.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that a debtor’s appeal of a sale order was statutorily mooted by Subsection 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In so ruling, the Eleventh Circuit held that: (1) while the Bankruptcy Code bars relief for an appeal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), it does not defeat jurisdiction; and (2) Subsection 363(m) applies to appeals from any sale authorized by the bankruptcy court, not just those properly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code.