Anti-phoenix laws were introduced in 2020, however, it wasn’t until last week that a judgment enforced these laws in Court, setting out clear precedent for future cases. In the case of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Intellicomms) & Ors v Technologie Fluenti Pty Ltd (Technologie Fluenti), Associate Justice Gardiner observed that the case had “all the classic hallmarks of a phoenix transaction” before handing down his decision.

The appointment of voluntary administrators to Probuild in March 2022 sent shockwaves through the construction industry. External administrations of other recognised brands such as Grocon, ABD Group, Privium and Condev have also caught media attention. Overall, external administrations in the construction industry have been increasing, notwithstanding that the insolvency numbers generally have declined to historical 20-year lows. The insolvency of each builder impacts numerous parties including developers, principals, sub-contractors, suppliers, consultants and employees.

This question had until recent times been a conundrum of modern fixed charge receiverships (as well as receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925), because in the scenario of the receiver seeking to step in and deal with property, the receiver is also said to be the borrower's deemed agent. It therefore begged a thorny question of the receiver, about how to reconcile being on both sides of the possession action.

Insolvency officeholders seeking to realise claims or other rights of action will take comfort from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Re Edengate [2022] EWCA Civ 626.

The Court held that failure by a liquidator to give a defendant the opportunity to buy or settle a claim against it before selling the claim to a third party is not necessarily perverse. However, it may often be sensible or good practice to do so.

In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.

Deepening a split of circuits, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Bankruptcy Code waived the sovereign immunity of Native American Tribes. The May 6, 2022 opinion by Judge Sandra L.

In the recent case of In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 340, the NSW Supreme Court has provided clarity on the order of priority for employee debts and secured creditor claims, where the key asset is an entitlement to tax refunds for research and development.

This matter involved the liquidators of Spitfire Corporation seeking directions under s 90-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) that:

En 2021, plusieurs décisions judiciaires d’importance pour les prêteurs commerciaux, les entreprises et les professionnels de l’insolvabilité ont été rendues d’un bout à l’autre du Canada.

The Commercial Court (Andrew Baker J) has handed down judgment on a jurisdiction challenge inInvest Bank v El-Husseini[2022] EWHC 894 (Comm). Daniel Warents (whose oral submission to the Court were said to have been “very well presented”) and Emma Hughes acted for the first, third, and fourth defendants (instructed by Streathers Solicitors LLP).

A discharge in bankruptcy usually discharges a debtor from the debtor’s liabilities. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, however, sets forth certain exceptions to this policy, including for “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).