In a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales regarding unfair preference claims - In the matter of Pacific Plumbing Group Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2024] NSWSC 525 – Justice Black provides guidance to liquidators on what is required to recover payments made to a third party on behalf of an insolvent company as unfair preferences.
In particular, the case highlighted that a liquidator has the burden of proof to show that:
In MaIlinckrodt PLC v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 23-1111, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court decision finding a debtor’s obligation to pay a perpetual royalty was an unsecured claim that was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The decision is a cautionary tale for contract counterparties that negotiate future payment rights.
Background
Insolvency and Restructuring Bulletin
Wanneer een juridisch geschil wordt voorgelegd aan de rechter, zijn er griffierechten verschuldigd. Griffierecht is de vergoeding die door de gerechtelijke instantie wordt geheven voor het in behandeling nemen van de zaak. De hoogte van deze kosten hangt bijvoorbeeld af van de aard van de zaak, het inkomen van een rechtszoekende, en of een natuurlijk persoon of rechtspersoon procedeert. Onder omstandigheden kan een (rechts)persoon in aanmerking komen voor het verlaagd griffierecht voor onvermogenden.
Verlaagd griffierecht voor onvermogenden
Der Bundesgerichtshof hat mit Urteil vom 24. Juli 2024 (II ZR 206/22) entschieden, dass ein aus dem Amt ausgeschiedener Geschäftsführer gemäß § 823 Abs. 2 BGB i.V.m. § 15a InsO grundsätzlich auch für Schäden von Neugläubigern haftet, die erst nach seinem Ausscheiden in vertragliche Beziehungen mit der Gesellschaft getreten sind, wenn die verschleppungsbedingte Gefahrenlage zum Zeitpunkt der Schadensentstehung noch fortbestand.
Sachverhalt
The general rule is that claims of the bankruptcy estate against third parties (e.g., preference claims and tort claims) can be sold to third parties in a § 363 sale.[Fn. 1]
However, a recent opinion from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discusses whether a state’s champerty law impairs a § 363 sale.[Fn. 2]
When a legal dispute is brought to court, court fees are payable. Court fee is the fee levied by the judicial authority for handling the case. The amount of these fees depends, for example, on the nature of the case, a litigant’s income, and whether a natural person or legal entity is litigating. Under these circumstances, a (legal) person may qualify for the reduced court fee for insolvent persons.
Reduced court fee for insolvent persons
Pursuant to the Civil Cases Fees Act, the reduced court fee for the insolvent may be levied in the following two cases:
Gläubigerbenachteiligungsvorsatz bei der Vorsatzanfechtung im Rahmen von Grundstücksverkäufen (BGH, Urteil vom 22. Februar 2024 – IX ZR 226/20).
The court has provided guidance on how to protect personal representatives in potentially insolvent estates in Wedgwood v Hosein and another [2024].
A recent judgment in Kevin Hellard & Ors v OJSC Rossiysky Kredit Bank (in liquidation) & Ors [2024] EWHC 1783 (Ch) the High Court considers the ‘ownership and control’ test in Bankruptcy, involving trustee powers and Russian Bank creditors.