In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

In our December 2012 insolvency update we reported on CP Asset Management Ltd v Grant, in which the High Court upheld a creditors' resolution to appoint new liquidators.  The High Court found that a resolution should only be set aside when it was found that the prejudice to creditors was unreasonable.  In the High Court, the minority of creditors who voted against the resolution were unable to e

The Court of Appeal has affirmed the High Court’s ruling that a voluntary administrator may only use a casting vote where the number of creditors voting for and against the resolution is equal. 

The second limb of the test, that the 50% represent at least 75% in value, cannot be the subject of the casting vote.  Nor can the casting vote be used to choose between the number and the value.

InThe Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Blackmore Trust Ltd, Blackmore tried to stave off liquidation for the sum of $1.4 million owed to the IRD.  After six or seven adjournments, Blackmore finally put evidence before the Court (albeit through its lawyer, rather than by affidavit) claiming that its liabilities totalled $15.6 million, and its sole asset, the James Smith building in the Wellington CBD, was valued at $21.5 million as a going concern, or $11 million - $13 million in a "fire sale".

Summary

One of the primary objectives of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) is to provide the bankrupt with an opportunity to stay existing creditors and establish a financial “clean slate”. The stay imposed on existing creditors includes creditors with causes of action existing at the time the bankruptcy is initiated. As a result, bankrupts can cause a halt to any existing or potential litigation by assigning themselves into bankruptcy.

Ontario Court Stays Retaliatory Action brought against Bank

Financial institutions seeking to enforce a debt or guarantee through bankruptcy or other court proceedings are sometimes faced with meritless retaliatory court actions brought by debtors attempting to frustrate or further delay payment. In general, Ontario courts will not compel parties to litigate the same dispute on multiple fronts. Instead, one proceeding will be temporarily stayed pending resolution of the other where the same core issues are raised in both.

In a recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Re Smurfit-Stone Container Canada Inc., Justice Pepall examined the conflicting interests that arise where companies within a group of restructuring companies have made intercompany loans to one another, and where the board of directors mirror each other in each subsidiary.

On October 13, 2009, Arclin Canada Ltd./Arclin Canada Ltee. (“Arclin”), who is restructuring under CCAA proceedings and whose American affiliates are restructuring under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, sought the approval of key employee retention program (“KERP”) agreements with its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer, and sought sealing orders with respect of the agreements. The KERP was approved by Justice Hoy. The following are some noteworthy points from this case.

After years of waiting, significant amendments to the Canadian regime of bankruptcy and insolvency law were declared in force as of September 18, 2009 (Amendments).