One consequence of the depressed real estate market has been numerous Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases wherein the debtor seeks confirmation of a “dirt-for-debt” plan. In such a plan, instead of paying the secured creditor the value of the real property securing the debt through restructured loan terms, the debtor proposes to convey part or all of the real property securing the debt to the creditor in full satisfaction of its secured claim.
Who should bear the risk and ultimately the financial burden of insolvent wrongdoers when determining the liability of defendants to a plaintiff? The defendants, or the plaintiff?
The Law Commission revisits this question in an Issues Paper, published last week, after recommending in 1998 to retain the traditional position.1
Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.
On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.
The fixed and floating charge
The facts behind Mr. Justice Lewison’s recent judgment in Stanford (STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch)) have no direct connection with either the British Virgin or Cayman Islands but lawyers there do have particular reason to note the more general principles around the seemingly vexed but important issue of COMI in the context of multi-jurisdictional insolvency.
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.
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:
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
When it comes to securing enforcement, it is worth thinking outside the box, and looking at what can be done overseas: the French procedure code offers to litigants the ability to obtain the Court's authorization to perform conservatory measures which freeze your debtor's assets, by way of security, for the ultimate enforcement and performance of judgments made in substantive proceedings.