Update on Liquidator remuneration post-Sakr1

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision2, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration:

Both of Canada’s primary insolvency statutes, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) provide for an automatic stay of all legal proceedings when an insolvent debtor files for or seeks insolvency protection. The purpose of the stay is to provide breathing space to a debtor attempting to restructure its business so as to avoid “death by a thousand cuts” and also to ensure similarly situated creditors are treated equally.

This week’s TGIF considers the case of Brandon Industries (Vic) Pty Ltd v Locker Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 373 where the Court dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand due to the applicant’s failure to establish a genuine dispute or offsetting claim pursuant to section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Crowe-Maxwell v Frost [2016] NSWCA 46 in which the Court held that a liquidator did not discharge his onus of proving relevant transactions were unreasonable director-related transactions.

BACKGROUND

In the matter ofMustang Marine Australia Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1074, Brereton J of the New South Wales Supreme Court held that there is no principle that before instituting proceedings a liquidator must be satisfied of the material facts that constitute its cause of action, and that absent such satisfaction the proceedings are an abuse of process. As long as proceedings are instituted for bona fide relief claimed and are not doomed then there is no abuse of process.

FACTS

The retail sector and its suppliers operate at the sharp end of the economy and feel the impact of tighter consumer spending with more immediacy than most other sectors.

Hong Kong's highest court has recently considered the extent of the court's sweeping jurisdiction under section 221 of the Companies Ordinance, which enables it (amongst other things) to compel companies in liquidation to produce documents and for individuals to be examined on oath. The case will be welcomed by liquidators given that the court unanimously confirmed that it has jurisdiction to make such orders under this "extraordinary" section.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a motion for summary judgment on the issue of damages by investors in Access Cardiosystems, Inc. against one of the defendants, Randall Fincke. The investors had asserted claims against Mr.

Given the overarching Madoff Ponzi scheme as well as other mini-Madoff schemes that surfaced in its wake, many have been following issues arising from the ability of a trustee to claw back transfers (either as preferential or as fraudulent transfers) from investors who redeemed their interests in a private investment fund or managed account that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme. The law generally provides that an investor’s principal investment is protected so long as it is received in good faith and for value.

On May 26, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LBHI) filed a motion requesting the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to establish August 24 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim against LBHI and its affiliates, and to establish a procedure for such filing, including a required form to be completed online relating to derivatives claims, and a new proof of claim form specific to this case.