Opening the door for the SME market, Sir Alistair Norris has sanctioned the first ever restructuring plan for a “mid-market” company. The plan sanctioned in Amicus Finance PLC (in administration) is also the first restructuring plan proposed by insolvency practitioners and the first to cram down a secured creditor.

The sanction judgment is short, but the adjourned convening hearing that was dealt with by Mr Justice Snowden (the first hearing was before Mr Justice Trowers) gives some insight into the plan.

A recent case handed down in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (rec and mgr apptd) (in liq) (2021) 39 ACLC ¶21-016; [2021] NSWSC 232, concerned the recoverability of payments as unfair preferences pursuant to Pt

Good afternoon.

Please find below our summaries of the civil decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal for the week of August 23, 2021.

There were three substantive civil decisions this week. Vu v. Canada (Attorney General) deals with discoverability and limitation periods related to the torts of false arrest and imprisonment. In dismissing the appeal, the Court confirmed the date of an arrest is merely a presumptive date for the commencement of the limitation period – a date that can be rebutted.

The peak indebtedness rule employed by liquidators to maximise recovery of unfair preference claims is abolished

簡介

我們於7月的清盤及重組文章中，介紹了中國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港律政司司長於2021年5月14日簽署《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》（「合作機制」），當中訂明了香港法院與深圳、上海及廈門三個試點地區的中級人民法院相互認可破產的程序和人員安排的具體程序。

Introduction

On August 30, 2021, BL Santa Fe, LLC, along with one affiliated debtor doing business as Bishops Lodge, an Auberge Resorts Collection luxury hotel and resort located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 21-11190). The company reports $50 to $100 million in both assets and liabilities.

An appeal against a decision to summarily dismiss the appellant’s application to have consent orders set aside has been allowed, after the Full Court found that the appellant was no longer a person affected by the consent orders.

In a recent judgment, which provides useful clarification to liquidators of companies, the High Court has held that section 631 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “Act”) does not confer a free-standing jurisdiction to order disclosure of information or documentation. Furthermore, the Court held that the inspection right conferred by section 684 of the Act cannot be used as a vehicle for carrying out a “fishing expedition” of a wide range of documents.

Background

Earlier this month – citing the “virtually unflagging obligation” of an Article III appellate court to exercise its subject matter jurisdiction – the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decried the pervasive overreliance by district courts on the doctrine “equitable mootness” to duck appeals of confirmation orders.[1]