In a recent case1, the High Court concluded that it was right to sanction schemes of arrangement which formed part of a wider debt restructuring that excluded out-of-the-money junior creditors. In doing so, it valued the distressed companies on a going concern basis.

Background

In the much anticipated decision of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011] UKSC 38 the Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc (“LBSF”) and in so doing provided clarification as to the scope and application of the anti-deprivation rule (the “Rule”).

Since the adoption of the 2011 Finance Act, the scope of application for thin capitalization rules, provided for in article 212 of the French Tax Code, was extended to all loans, including bank loans, backed by security interest or a guarantee, granted by a company belonging to the borrower's group or by a company with a guaranteed undertaking secured by a company related to the borrower.

Two companies showed interest in the assets of a third company that was in a state of bankruptcy.

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Fordyce v Ryan & Anor; Fordyce v Quinn & Anor [2016] QSC 307, where the Court considered whether a beneficiary’s interest in a discretionary trust amounted to ‘property’ for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

In DSG Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Helenic Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 96, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the “interests of the creditors as a whole” under section 600A of the Corporations Actand the circumstances in which the Court will intervene to set aside or impose conditions on resolutions passed at creditors meetings.

BACKGROUND

In the matter of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd; Richard Albarran and Blair Alexander Pleash as receivers and managers of Maiden Civil (P&E) Pty Ltd & Ors v Queensland Excavation Services Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] NSWSC 852

Overview

The Sinclair v Versailles1 decision has extinguished any prospect that a victim of a fraud has a proprietary claim to a fraudster’s secret profits. It also offers significant comfort to banks, insolvency practitioners and other potential recipients of trust funds by setting a high bar for whether a recipient person is “on notice” of a proprietary claim to those funds.

In brief