The "running account" defence to an unfair preference claim is a fragile flower.  In a recent decision, the Queensland Court of Appeal has reminded solvent counterparties that suspension of a customer's trading account will probably break the "running account", exposing a solvent counterparty to greater unfair preference risk.

Need to know

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

In a series of recent decisions1, the Federal Court of Australia has held that section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) operates such that any new security granted by a company in external administration2. that could only be perfected by registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), and which is not the subject of an effective registration made before the appointment of the external administrator, will be ineffective3.

On 1 September 2017, the remaining parts of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) as Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) commenced operation, including the provisions relating to "funds handling" contained in Division 65 of the IPS. These provisions apply to all "external administrations"1. including those that commenced prior to 1 September 20172.

As we previously reported, the amendments made to the Singapore Companies Act (Companies Act) are part of Singapore’s efforts to become a hub for the restructuring of troubled companies in Asia.

Key points summary

Following the recent high-profile appeal decision, 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:

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:

With the backdrop of INSOL 2017, Asia Today International’s Leon Gettler explores the issues and challenges of insolvency and restructuring in Asia Pacific with special guests: FTI Consulting’s head of Corporate Finance & Restructuring in Asia, John Batchelor; Baker McKenzie’s head of Australian Restructuring & Insolvency, Maria O’Brien; and Senior Legal Counsel for ANZ, Miles Grant.

Please click here to listen to the podcast.

Court of Appeal sets the record straight

The key point

On March 9, 2017, a full bench of the New South Wales Court of Appeal handed down a significant decision affecting approach to judicial review and approval of liquidator remuneration. Significantly, existing tension between decisions of different judges at first instance, and between NSW and Federal courts, has been resolved.

Introduction

The concept of winding up does not exclusively apply to insolvent companies. Solvent companies can also be wound up, on the initiation of the company’s directors and shareholders (for example, as part of a corporate reconstruction or to close down non-operating or redundant entities).

An overview of the two key procedures to effect the dissolution of a solvent Australian company, being Members’ Voluntary Liquidation and Deregistration, is set out below.