The recent Federal Court decision of Scott v Southern Highlands Waste & Recycling Pty Ltd[1] provides liquidators with important guidance regarding the availability of search and seizure warrants under section 530C of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Corps Act).

On October 14, 2020, the honorable Christopher Sontchi, Chief Judge of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, issued an opinion in the Extraction Oil and Gas bankruptcy case finding that certain oil, gas and water gathering agreements (the “Agreements”) did not create covenants running with the land under Colorado law and are thus subject to rejection in Extraction’s chapter 11 proceedings.

The Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (“UCRERA”), adopted by Michigan in 2018, originally applied only to receiverships over commercial real estate. An amendment effective October 15, 2020, shortens the name of the Act to the “Receivership Act” and makes the Act applicable generally to commercial and industrial (“C&I”) loans that have no real estate collateral. This article summarizes some of the changes and the interplay between receivership and bankruptcy.

A recent decision of the Federal Court has confirmed that a secured creditor who consents to employee creditors being paid out of the charged asset pool is entitled to be subrogated to the priority rights of those employee creditors.

1.1 Facts

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) was the only secured creditor of Akron Roads Pty Ltd (Akron), holding fixed and floating charges over all of Akron’s undertakings and assets. In 2010, liquidators were appointed to Akron.

With the football transfer window having closed on another round of multimillion-pound transfers, the perception continues that football is a sport awash with cash. However, as football plays on behind closed doors, one need not look too far beneath the surface to uncover clubs across the country struggling to cope with the financial impact of COVID-19.

Het zijn rare tijden. Thuiswerken is de norm geworden. Geen potjes tafeltennis met collega’s, geen gespreken bij het koffieapparaat en een virtuele kennissessie of virtuele vrijdagmiddagborrel is het toch net niet. Gelukkig zijn er ook dingen die wel hetzelfde zijn gebleven: de bestuurdersaansprakelijkheidsupdates van Ploum bij aanvang van een nieuw kwartaal.

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent case where the Federal Court ordered the reinstatement of two companies to allow proceedings to be commenced against the liquidator of those companies for alleged breaches of duty (Lee v Parker [2020] FCA 1453).

Key takeaways

Introduction

It is trite law that where a petition debt is disputed in good faith and on substantial grounds, the ordinary practice of the Court is to dismiss or strike out the winding up petition. However, this principle is more easily applied in theory than in practice. As a result, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has observed recently that "It is remarkable how much case law has been generated in relation to a legal test which has essentially been settled for many years" (Re Sky Solar Holdings Ltd).

In a recent case Sagufa Ahmed & ors. V. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & ors.^[1], the Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice S.A.

Die für Geschäftspartner (Gläubiger) eines bankrotten Kaufmanns oder Unternehmens (Schuldner) bereits an sich schlechte Situation wird durch das Recht des Insolvenzverwalters zur Insolvenzanfechtung nach §§ 129 ff InsO vielfach erst richtig ärgerlich. Insolvenzanfechtung bedeutet, dass derjenige, der vorinsolvenzlich noch Leistungen oder auch nur Sicherheiten vom Schuldner erhalten hat, gezwungen sein kann, diese zur Befriedigung der Gläubigergesamtheit wieder herausgeben zu müssen.

Wenn Insolvenz droht