|
Publication
|
Version
|
File Size
|
|
|
Can a scheme of arrangement extinguish a creditor’s claim against a third party? - Insolvency Update - May 2010
|
1
|
16KB
|
|
|
Before the court had published its reasons, Gadens Lawyers issued an update on the High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal of Swan & Co v Lehman Brothers Asia Holdings Limited (In Liquidation) [2009] FCAFC 130 (Lehman Decision).
|
|
|
|
Can a DOCA Extinguish a Creditor’s Claim Against a Third Party? - Insolvency Update - April 2010
|
1
|
14KB
|
|
|
The recent High Court decision to dismiss the appeal in City of Swan & Co v Lehman Brothers Asia Holdings Limited (In Liquidation) [2009] FCAFC 130 (Lehman Decision) is a reminder that Deeds of Company Arrangement (DOCAs) have limitations and cannot extinguish creditors’ claims against third parties. However, Schemes of Company Arrangement may resolve this issue.
|
|
|
|
Third Party Claims and Deeds of Company Arrangement - City of Swan v Lehman Bros Australia Ltd - Banking Finance and Insolvency Update - October 2009
|
1
|
27KB
|
|
|
The Full Federal Court has recently handed down a decision as to whether a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) can release third parties from claims which may be brought by creditors. The decision will have wide ramifications in relation to the rights of creditors claiming against third parties following the collapse of a company.
|
|
|
|
Distressed Business and Asset Sales – Tips and Pitfalls; Title Insurance – Benefits for External Administrators - Insolvency Update September 2009
|
1
|
33KB
|
|
|
Distressed business and asset sales – tips and pitfalls
by Clive Cachia of Gadens Lawyers, Sydney
In the current economic and financial climate, external administrators including receivers, liquidators, voluntary administrators and deed administrators are under increasing pressure to quickly sell under-performing businesses or assets under their control.
These external administrators will face a myriad of competing demands from interested stakeholders including secured and unsecured creditors, equity and quasi-equity investors, the purchaser and the purchaser’s financiers. Set out below is a brief list of some tips external administrators can employ and some pitfalls they should be aware of to help address such demands when selling distressed businesses and assets.
Title Insurance – Benefits for external administrators
by Jon Downes, General Counsel of First Title Insurance
Where external administrators are selling property assets, whether individually or as a portfolio, difficulties are often faced as the administrator is generally unable to provide vendor title warranties. This typically impacts on the price a purchaser is willing to pay. It can also result in the purchaser carrying out its own lengthy due diligence as its lawyers have to take extra care in trawling through each and every title document. This can in turn lead to delay, further causing a devaluation of the property assets, especially where the real estate market is in a downturn and property prices are dropping quickly.
|
|
|
|
Insolvency Update - July 2009
|
1
|
22KB
|
|
|
Exposure Draft Bill - GST and insolvency practitioners
by Cameron Steele of Gadens Lawyers, Sydney
The Government has released its long-awaited Exposure Draft Bill altering the GST liability of insolvency practitioners.
The amendments seek to counter the effects of the Federal Court’s decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v P M Developments Ltd [2008] FCA 1886, where it was held that the GST law did not impose a liability on a liquidator appointed to an insolvent company. The court found that the GST liability was a liability of the company in liquidation.
The proposed amendments are intended to apply from 1 July 2000. The retrospective nature of the amendments could give rise to GST liabilities for insolvency practitioners who have since retired from their role as an external administrator and are no longer able to access the company’s assets or any indemnity that operated during their appointment. However, practitioners who can establish that they acted in ‘good faith’ may be protected against recovery proceedings.
|
|
|
|
Tax Update - December 2008
|
1
|
44KB
|
|
|
GST in these troubled times
A recent survey by Sydney’s Daily Telegraph found “at the end of the day” to be the most irritating phrase in the English language. However, the current economic woes have set the scene for the crowning of a new champion, with the emergence of phrases like “global economic crisis”, “financial meltdown” and the inevitable return of that old chestnut “in these troubled times”… a new winner to be sure!
|
|
|
|
Insolvency Update - August 2008
|
1
|
23KB
|
|
|
Rolling back Romalpa: administrations and retention of title revisited. The amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 made in December 2007 radically changed the law surrounding administrations and retention of title clauses.
The effect of the amendments is to prevent an administrator from being personally liable for selling goods that are the subject of a retention of title clause.
|
|
|
|
Insolvency Update - July 2008
|
1
|
26KB
|
|
|
When a liquidator seeks to recover multiple unfair preferences from creditors of an insolvent company, there are two main ways of proceeding.
1. "Mother ship" proceedings; or
2. "Satellite" proceedings.
Either, the liquidator:
1. commences one set of proceedings, against multiple defendants, seeking the recovery of unfair preferences (the "mother ship" proceedings); or
2. commences action against the creditors in separate proceedings in appropriate jurisdictions ("satellite" proceedings).
|
|
|
|
Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic; ING Investment Management LLC v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1 (31 January 2007)
|
1
|
17KB
|
|
|
High Court decision concerning how a shareholder's claim against a company should be treated in the context of a winding up or administration - paper presented at Gadens Lawyers on 7 February 2007, by Ivan Griscti, Barrister, Seven Wentworth
|
|
|
