TOWNSQUARE MEDIA v. BRILL (July 21, 2011)

The House of Lords has ruled that English assets of the HIH group of companies are to be remitted to the Australian liquidators for distribution under Australian law. This briefing discusses the background to McGrath and another and others v Riddell and others [2008] UKHL 21 and the implications of the ruling.

Background

The House of Lords recently had to consider whether the English court should remit assets when faced with a request to do so by a foreign court.

MCGRATH AND ANOTHER v RIDDELL, House of Lords, 9 April 2008

The liquidators of the HIH group of Australian insurance companies appealed against the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that certain assets of the HIH group, mostly reinsurance claims on policies taken out in the London market, should not be remitted to Australia. The courts instead ordered that the assets should remain in England and be distributed to creditors in accordance with English insolvency laws.

In a July 12, 2007 post, we reported on issues relating to HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited (“HIH”). The question before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a request under the Insolvency Act for directions to the liquidators in England to transfer assets collected by them to the liquidators in an Australian liquidation. The Court of Appeal held that it would not direct a transfer of the English assets by the English provisional liquidators to the Australian liquidators because to do so would prejudice the interests of many of the creditors.

The recent decision in Pacific China Holdings Limited v Grand Pacific Holdings Limited, BVIHCV 2009/389 sets out the view of the BVI Commercial Court as to who, if anyone, should be responsible for the remuneration of liquidators where a liquidation order is set aside on appeal.

Update on Liquidator remuneration post-Sakr1

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision2, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has now finalised the saga that was the review and approval of the remuneration of the Liquidator of Sakr Nominees.

From that decision emerge several key points for insolvency professionals when considering their remuneration:

In May of 2010, we reported on the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Ted Leroy Trucking v. Century Services Inc. In that decision, the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the B.C.

In the recent decision of Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60, the Supreme Court of Canada has, for the first time, interpreted key provisions of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

The judgment of the Court, which was pronounced December 16, 2010, overrules appellate authority from Ontario and British Columbia that previously conferred a priority for unremitted GST on the Crown in CCAA proceedings, and endorses the broad discretionary power of a CCAA court.

On July 7, 2008, the Wage Earner Protection Program Act (the "WEPPA") was proclaimed into force, along with complementary amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the "BIA") and other related statutes. The new program protects a limited amount of the unpaid wages of employees when an employer becomes bankrupt or is placed into receivership, and the amendments to the BIA provide for the priority of some un-remitted pension contributions.

The Wage Earner Protection Program (the "WEPP")

Supreme Court Judgment (ex tempore), 20 February 2009

A return of no goods (nulla bona) no longer required for issue of bankruptcy summons

A decision of the High Court, affirming a rule of practice which required a return of no goods (or a good reason for the absence of same) before it would issue a bankruptcy summons to a creditor, has been successfully appealed to the Supreme Court.  

BACKGROUND