An appellate court judgment will bring comfort to liquidators of insolvent companies in respect of the limitation periods applicable in cases of fraud or deliberate concealment
Mit dem Königlichen Gesetzesdekret 5/2021 vom 12. März 2021 hatte die spanische Regierung erneut die Insolvenzantragsfrist bis zum 31. Dezember 2021 ausgesetzt. Insolvenzanträge von Gläubigern werden von den spanischen Insolvenzgerichten bis zum genannten Datum ebenfalls nicht zum Verfahren zugelassen. Diese gesetzliche Regelung konnte aber auch nicht vermeiden, dass im Monat März die höchste Anzahl von Insolvenzanträgen seit 2014 gestellt wurden.
The interesting times of the last 14 months were preceded by the interesting times of the financial crisis of 2008/2009. The reverberations of that financial crisis had a profound effect upon governments’ presumptions as to the financial stability of economies generally but also the financial stability of sectors such as financial services.
A discharge of debt in bankruptcy “operates as an injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action, the employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of the debtor. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2). Certain debts, however, including debts “for violation of . . . any of the State securities laws,” are not subject to discharge. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19). A discharge injunction does not bar the collection of such debts.
Duty of care in tort not established in favour of main contractor from third party sub consultant
It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.
A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity
On April 1st, 2021, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal of Québec in Séquestre de Media5 Corporation, 2020 QCCA 943. As a result, Quebec courts now have clarity regarding their ability to appoint national receivers for secured creditors.
On July 20, 2020, the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and confirmed the following principles:
For clarity on this topic, we will explain the priority regime in different scenarios.
In Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd the High Court highlighted the interplay between insolvency and construction adjudication issues.
The High Court in Meltzer and Lamacraft v Amstar New Zealand Ltd [2020] NZHC 3510 has confirmed that a payee cannot enforce an adjudication determination and may not be able to maintain charging orders if the payer goes into administration.