In Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2014] HCA 15, the High Court confirmed the Universal Distributing principle that a liquidator is entitled to be paid his or her remuneration and expenses in realising assets in priority to a secured creditor.

BACKGROUND

The story of the restructuring of carpet-maker, Brintons has featured in the press recently, with emphasis on the role of Carlyle, one of the world's biggest private equity firms. The facts are similar to the Silentnight pre-pack which we featured in a previous bulletin. In each case, the Pensions Regulator is said to be considering using its anti-avoidance powers under the Pensions Act 2004 to compel senior debt holders to pay towards the deficit of the defined benefit pension scheme operated by the company.

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.

The High Court has recently considered the interpretation of Section 6(a) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement: Grant & Ors v WDW 3 Investments Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2807 (Ch).

On 22 August 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales approved the Boart Longyear creditor schemes of arrangement following substantial alterations to the terms of the schemes after clear messaging from the Court that it was unlikely to approve the schemes as originally formulated, on fairness grounds. In this article, we discuss some of the implications of this important judgment, which advisers will need to take into account when devising restructuring plans involving creditors’ schemes of arrangement.

In brief

On November 8, 2018, in a decision delivered unanimously from the bench, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Crown’s superpriority over unremitted Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) is ineffective against a secured creditor who received, prior to a tax debtor’s bankruptcy, proceeds from that taxpayer’s assets.1

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”).

In a recent holding that a creditor may collect, on an unsecured basis, post-petition attorneys’ fees under an otherwise enforceable pre-petition contract, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals followed a similar ruling by the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, adding to a conflict among the circuits on this issue.

Recently, a Colorado bankruptcy court considered for the first time the effects of Bankruptcy Code Section 552 on a lender’s security interest in the proceeds of an FCC broadcast license. The court held that a prepetition security interest would not extend to proceeds received from a post-petition transfer of the debtor’s FCC license because the debtor did not have an attachable, prepetition property interest in the proceeds. Such an interest does not arise until the FCC approves an agreement to sell the license.

On January 25, 2017, the British Columbia Supreme Court rendered its decision in Tudor Sales Ltd. (Re), 2017 BCSC 119.