In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.

It is important for a receiver or voluntary administrator to ensure that a proper sales process is undertaken relevant to the circumstances as there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach.

A de facto wife has been unsuccessful in an appeal against a declaration that a binding financial agreement covered all the property of the parties.

The de facto wife became bankrupt after filing the appeal and her trustee in bankruptcy did not wish to pursue the appeal. The court considered that any property that the de facto wife would be entitled to in property settlement would vest in her trustee in bankruptcy.

The court found the de facto wife did not have sufficient interest in the order which was the subject of the appeal in order to give her standing.

The pre-existing dispute which may be ground to thwart an application under Section 9 of the I&B Code, 2016 (“Code”)has to be a real dispute, a conflict or controversy. Such conflict of claims or rights should be apparent from the reply to Demand Notice as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Code. Essentially meaning that the Corporate Debtor is not to raise bogie of disputes but there has to be a real substantial dispute.

On December 6, 2021, Strike, LLC of Woodlands, TX filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 21-90054) along with several affiliates.

The Australian Sawmilling Company Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294

Background

When Covid hit in March 2020 and the country went into lockdown with an associated dip in economic activity and consumer confidence, the viability of many small and medium sized enterprises was called into question. Many directors will have had cause to consider their obligation to place their company into an insolvency proceeding in order to insulate themselves from personal liability, and in particular liability for wrongful trading (continuing to trade when they knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of the company surviving).

Periodically courts remind corporate directors that their decisions to act or to refrain from acting during the course of managing the affairs of a corporation are not without limitations. It is well established that corporate directors owe fiduciary duties, and more specifically, a duty of care and a duty of loyalty to corporate shareholders. Those duties should always be at the front of mind of every director when any action or inaction is contemplated, but in particular, when addressing challenging issues facing the corporation.

Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214

In Carna Group Pty Ltd v The Griffin Coal Mining Company (No 6) [2021] FCA 1214, McKerracher J considered the meaning of “insolvent” within the context of a commercial contract and relevantly found that:

Background