The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was amended to address the outcome of the High Court's decision in Cook v Benson1. It was held in that case that a trustee in bankruptcy could not recover amounts transferred from a retirement fund to another superannuation fund after the bankruptcy of the member as the amounts rolled over to the fund by or on behalf of the member were made in good faith and for consideration (ie the member had a right to receive benefits on retirement).

Introduction

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found a solicitor liable for facilitating unlawful ‘phoenix’ activity.1 Phoenix activity consists of transferring business assets out of an old debt-laden company (which subsequently goes into liquidation) to a new debt free company. The new company carries on the business of the old company; but the assets are put beyond the reach of the creditors of the old company.

On 20 June 2016, Rio de Janeiro-based Oi SA, Brazil’s fourth-largest telecom company, filed the largest judicial reorganisation petition in Brazil’s history, days after debt restructuring talks with creditors collapsed. The filing of Oi and six subsidiaries lists 65.4 billion reais (USD19.26 billion) in debt. The company has also filed for Chapter 15 protection in the U.S.  As from the date of filing the accrual of interests, penalties, monetary correction and late charges are suspended and will only become enforceable if the judicial reorganisation becomes a bankruptcy.

El 20 de junio de 2016 Oi SA, la cuarta empresa brasileña de telecomunicaciones, con sede en Río de Janeiro, presentó la solicitud de reorganización judicial más grande en la historia de Brasil, tras el colapso de negociaciones con acreedores para reestructurar deuda. La solicitud de Oi y sus seis subsidiarias comprenden en total una deuda de 65.4 billones de reales (USD19.26 billones). La empresa también solicitó la protección Chapter 15 en los EE.UU.

In the case of Delco Participation BV v Green Elite Limited [2018] the Court of Appeal considered the test for appointing liquidators to a company following an alleged loss of substratum.

Under the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (the “Act”) there are two types of court supervised arrangements.

On 16 September 2011 judgment was handed down by the BVI Commercial Court in a number of cases that have been brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited (“Fairfield”), a "feeder fund" into Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities Limited (“BLMIS”), against a number of investors that historically redeemed out of the fund (the "Fairfield judgment"). Subject to any appeal, the Fairfield judgment should put an end to the liquidators’ claims in the BVI.

In a decision of interest in a number of jurisdictions where these types of claims have been made, the BVI Commercial Court handed down judgment today in the claim brought by the liquidators of Fairfield Sentry Limited, a BVI fund which invested in Bernard Madoff’s investment vehicle.

Redemption of shares and consideration
Discounted valuation
Restoration
Finality of foreign judgments

Redemption of shares and consideration

There continues to be numerous issues surrounding the “creditor/investor” debate in fund’s litigation. There have been a number of cases of particular note. First of all Citco Global v Y2K Finance where a winding up petition was brought on two basis. First of all, alleged improper redemption payments made by the fund prior to the suspension of redemptions.