Industry insights
Following two significant insolvency decisions in the High Court of Australia (Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd and Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton), insolvency professionals and creditors have had to reassess the value and requirements of proof in unfair preference claim recoveries.
On 30 November the Supreme Court delivered its written judgment dealing with the correct test for insolvency when considering the eligibility of a debtor for a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 (as amended).
Background
One of the qualifying criteria for a PIA is that the debtor must demonstrate that the debtor is “insolvent” within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. That provision defines the term as meaning “that the debtor is unable to pay his or her debts in full as they fall due”.
This article will look at the recent decision of David Doyle J in In the Matter of HQP Corporation Limited (in Official Liquidation) (7 July 2023) and its effect on the ability of investors to recover damages from a company in which they have acquired shares as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Introduction
The case involved an application by liquidators for direction in relation to three issues in the winding up of the Company:
1. INTRODUCTION
On 9 November 2023, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, while disposing off over 350 writ petitions, in Dilip B. Jiwarajka v. Union of India and Ors. 1 , upheld the constitutional validity of several key provisions [Section 95 to Section 100] of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) pertaining to the insolvency resolution process for individuals and partnership firms.
On December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal of Poonian v British Columbia Securities Commission, 2022 B
The Supreme Court recently considered whether administrators of a company can be prosecuted for a failure to provide notice to the Secretary of State, using form HR1, of proposed collective redundancies.
They found that for the purposes of interpreting the relevant section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 ("TULRCA"), administrators were not an "officer" and so were not subject to the obligation to file an HR1. This decision, however, has the potential to impact much wider than the world of redundancies.
As the nights draw in and the new year approaches, we take stock of the state of play for European restructuring and look ahead at potential trends for 2024.
Completion of legal reforms
Commonwealth of Australia v Tonks [2023] NSWCA 285
In this decision, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of NSW considered the interplay between the priority regimes under ss 556 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) in resolving a contest between a liquidator’s claim for remuneration and the entitlements of former employees to be paid out of circulating assets.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision of Justice Black in finding that:
The Companies (Amendment) Bill 2023 (“Bill”) was passed by the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) of the Malaysian Parliament on 28 November 2023. It will be tabled before the Dewan Negara (Senate) and if passed, will be presented for Royal Assent and be gazetted into law.
Introducción
En las píldoras concursales de este mes destacamos: