In a decision handed down by Brown J on 20 May 2022 in Michaela Manicaros v Commercial Images (Aust) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 83, the Queensland Supreme Court provided useful guidance on when a liquidator may recover their legal costs of a remuneration application from a creditor objecting to the application (Objector).

Liquidators generally have the power to assign causes of action belonging to a company, or claims conferred on the liquidator by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act). However, a liquidator’s power to sell or assign causes of action has certain limitations which were considered in Anderson v Canaccord Genuity Financial Limited [2022] NSWSC 58 (Anderson Judgment).

Flight v. Leblanc 2022 ONCA 831, argued by Lucy Sun and Jason Squire of Lerners, involved an interesting intersection of limitations law and insolvency practice. We were retained by the respondent on the appeal of a summary judgment motion dismissing the action (we did not act at first instance).

In Re Nicolas Critini Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 1149, the New South Wales Supreme Court confirmed that a statutory debt for a disputed progress claim does not crystalise under SOPA’s^[1] distinct 'pay now, argue later' process until an adjudication determination is delivered.

In the matter of Mediacloud Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2021] NSWSC 357 the New South Wales Supreme Court demonstrated its wide discretionary power. The decision extended the period of administration of a company to avoid it being automatically wound up for failing to execute a deed of company arrangement within the required time. This, in effect, permitted the administrators to ‘re-do’ a second meeting of creditors, enabling the creditors to decide the company’s future again.

The Southern District of New York vacated a bankruptcy court’s judgment holding a debtor’s business competitor (C) “in contempt for violation of the [Bankruptcy Code’s] automatic stay…and assessing sanctions” of $19.2 million. In re Windstream Holdings, Inc., 2022 WL 5245633, *1 (2) (S.D.N.Y. Oct 6, 2022).

Introduction

Welcome to the latest in the series of blogs from Fenchurch Law: 100 cases every policyholder needs to know. An opinionated and practical guide to the most important insurance decisions relating to the London / English insurance markets, all looked at from a pro-policyholder perspective.

Some cases are correctly decided and positive for policyholders. We celebrate those cases as The Good.

Some cases are, in our view, bad for policyholders, wrongly decided, and in need of being overturned. We highlight those decisions as The Bad.

The unique circumstances of the last few years (and hard-charging investors) have forced many borrowers without adequate near-term liquidity to engage in more creative and aggressive liability-management transactions. These transactions have often taken the form of "uptiering" financings.

The recent decision in Re Astora Women’s Health LLC illustrates the importance of cross-border recognition of insolvency processes, highlighting the benefits of a joined-up global approach which recognises that modern business do not stop for international borders.

With Astora hot off the presses and the twenty-fifth anniversary of the UNCITRAL Model Law on the horizon the team at SPB have taken stock of the cross-border recognition framework from the perspective of the UK and the US.

Astora