In a decision arising out of Tribune’s 2008 bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision affirming confirmation of the media conglomerate’s chapter 11 plan over objections raised by senior noteholders who contended that the plan violated their rights under the Bankruptcy Code by not according them the full benefit of their prepetition subordination agreements with other creditors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered unprecedented levels of business disruption and forced numerous companies into bankruptcy in an effort to preserve dwindling liquidity and postpone creditor demands. Retailers, whose brick-and-mortar locations were already struggling to adapt to an increasingly online marketplace, have been among the hardest hit. A number of bankruptcy judges, faced with the prospect of an avalanche of forced liquidations, have thrown these debtors a lifeline by approving requests to suspend lease payments.

In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the hospitality industry. Hotel occupancy rates have fallen greatly in many markets, with employee layoffs and property closures affecting even the largest and otherwise best performing hotels. It is uncertain when the industry will recover. Many hotel properties will require a chapter 11 bankruptcy case to successfully reorganize their debt obligations and operations and preserve the value of the business.

Recently, in Artesanias Hacienda Real S.A. De C.V. v. North Mill Capital, LLC; Leisawitz Heller, the Third Circuit held that creditors can pursue claims of the bankruptcy estate that have been abandoned by the trustee.

Summary

In Carey v Korda [2012] WASCA 228, the Western Australian Supreme Court of Appeal (Court) has provided a timely confirmation that legal advisers engaged by receivers to provide advice in relation to a receivership are properly viewed as advisers to the receivers as principal, and not the mortgagor company.

The decision will no doubt be welcomed by insolvency practitioners, as it confirms that the legal advice, and the right to invoke the associated privilege, belongs to the receivers, not the mortgagor company.

The recent Federal Court of Australia (Court) decision in KASH Aboriginal Corporation ICN 108 (Administrators Appointed) No 2 [2012] FCA 789 confirms that an administrator of a company who acts honestly and reasonably may be protected from personal liability for any debts incurred while carrying out an administration.

Background

The evidence before the court established that:

In a recent decision[1] the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked, pursuant to section 447A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), to appoint a special purpose administrator to cure a perceived conflict of interest between a company (in administration) and the original administrator appointed to the company.

Changes to the Listing Rules and further consultation on enhancing the effectiveness of the regime