Ford (Administrator), in the matter of The PAS Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) v Scentre Management Limited [2020] FCA 1023

A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) (the “Court”) in the receivership proceedings of The Clover on Yonge Inc.[1] (the “Clover Project”) has addressed the question of whether a debtor in receivership can avoid a sales process by redeeming its outstanding debt.

Court closures

India was in complete lockdown from 24 March until 31 May, a situation that inevitably impacted the functioning of Indian courts. Even though most implemented measures to conduct virtual hearings, these hearings have been limited to only the most urgent cases. Once courts return to business as usual, they are likely to receive a surge in filings, which will increase the backlog in a country that already has 30 million pending cases.

The recently enacted Small Business Reorganization Act ("SBRA") is available to help "small business debtors" with debts of no more than $2,725,625 (temporarily increased to $7,500,000 for one year by the CARES Act). Although there are several requirements that must be satisfied in order to qualify as a "small business debtor" under the Bankruptcy Code, courts have recently considered whether an individual debtor must be engaged in "commercial or business activities" at the time of his or her bankruptcy filing. Both courts which have considered the question have answered "no."

A bankruptcy petition was dismissed on the application of the debtor, who claimed that a guarantee document was not a valid deed, the transaction which was purported to be guaranteed was a sham and that the debtor’s signature had been forged. Whilst the court accepted that there was a substantial dispute as regards the transaction (payment of fees of US$500 billion!) and that the form of guarantee was invalid, as no evidence had been called to show that the debtor’s signature had been forged, the bankruptcy petition hearing was not the right forum to decide the matter.

Introduction

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices

In Yeo, in the matter of Ready Kit Cabinets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation,[1] the Court considered whether payments made to the Deputy Commission of Taxation (DCT) by a director of the company, required under a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) were recoverable as unfair preferences.

The long running question of whether a contractual dispute relating to a breach of a construction contract can be the subject of Adjudication, if one of the parties is in Liquidation, and there are cross claims for insolvency set off was settled by The Supreme Court. Needless to say the two parties both claimed breach of contract and damages. The contract allowed for a dispute to be resolved by Arbitration which the sub-contractor Bresco wished to pursue. This was opposed on the basis of incompatibility between insolvency set-off, and an argument that the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

In this case the court was asked to allow the convening of a meeting of creditors to consider and approve a scheme of arrangement by telephone and video conference in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. The meeting was proposed to take place on 20 July 2020 when there was likely to be an easing of the lockdown measure. The court approved the application and made the necessary order.

A similar order was made in a more recent case: Re ColourOz Investment 2 LLC and other companies.