A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.

Getting your house in order

Understand your counterparty risks

It is very important in the present climate to understand your contracts and your counterparty risks. We are finding an increasing number of clients “stress testing” their contracts and considering the consequence of an insolvency event. This is good practice; particularly since to identify weaknesses in structures and counterparty risk upon insolvency may afford you the time to fix it before things do go wrong.

Where are the documents?

On 5 October 2011 Justice Barrett of the Supreme Court of NSW handed down a decision in Centro Retail Limited and Centro MCS Manager Limited in its capacity as Responsible Entity of the Centro Retail Trust [2011] NSWSC 1175 (“Centro”) where he found that the responsible entity of Centro Retail Trust would be justified in modifying the constitution of the trust without unitholder approval to a insert a provision permitting the issue of units at a price different to that provided for by the pre-existing provisions.

The European Commission has approved the plan by the Italian authorities to sell the assets of the airline Alitalia, which had entered into financial difficulties, under a special insolvency procedure. The Commission concluded that the sale of the assets would not constitute a subsidy prohibited under EU State aid rules provided the assets are sold at market value and other conditions have been satisfied. An independent trustee has been appointed to oversee the sale by the administrator assigned under the special insolvency procedure.

Lawrence Gold recently presented on abuses of the Repair and Storage Liens Act (Ontario) (“RSLA”) impacting commercial finance and insurance companies to the Ontario Personal Property Security Legislation Committee (“PPSL Committee”). As changes to the RSLA will likely not be implemented in the near future, concerns regarding abuse of lien claimant rights are of significant importance to the industry.

In the recent decision of Justice Cumming In the Matter of the Proposal of Hypnotic Clubs Inc. (“Hypnotic” or the “Debtor”) the court dismissed a motion by the Debtor for a sale of its assets pursuant to s.65.13 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”).

On September 18, 2009, long-awaited amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”) take effect that will have a significant impact on commercial insolvencies in Canada. While many of these changes reflect existing practice and case law, some introduce more novel concepts not developed by courts, broadening what can be accomplished under the insolvency regime. This article comments on salient features of the new amendments.

GE financed two tractor trailers for Brampton Leasing & Rentals Ltd. (“Debtor”) under conditional sale contracts and perfected its security under the Personal Property Security Act (Ontario) (“PPSA”).

The Debtor leased the vehicles to lessees, who obtained vehicle insurance from ING. GE was not named as a loss payee by the Debtor or the lessees.

milbank.com 1 Client Alert: Close-out Netting Provisions partially held invalid by German Federal Court of Justice General Administrative Act (Allgemeinverfügung) issued by German Federal Supervisory Authority to avoid Legal Uncertainty and Distortions in Financial Markets EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") ruled on 9 June 2016 that contractual close-out netting provisions which deviate from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung) are invalid and section 104 of the German Insolvency Code applies in lieu of the invalid contra

Kerr & Ors v Conduit Enterprises Ltd

In 1997 the two directors of the company and others purchased a building and leased it to the company. Ownership of the company changed hands a number of times and, in 2008, the then new owners purported to void the lease on the basis that it had never been approved by shareholder resolution. The landlords issued proceedings seeking a declaration that the lease was valid.

The court held that: