In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).

Key takeaways

In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.

The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.

The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.

In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:

How should the liquidator of an insolvent trustee company ensure payment out of trust assets of the entirety of his or her remuneration and expenses?

In its much anticipated decision, the High Court has unanimously dismissed the Amerind appeal.[1] This decision finally resolves recent uncertainty as to the proper application of trust assets in the liquidation of an insolvent corporate trustee.

In short, the High Court’s decision confirms that in the winding up of a corporate trustee:

The significance of this decision

On 3 May 2019, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an application brought by the administrators of an oil and gas exploration company, Paltar Petroleum Limited (Paltar) to adjourn proceedings for the winding-up of the company in insolvency. The decision illustrates that the belated appointment of administrators appointed by directors in response to pending winding-up proceedings is unlikely to keep at bay the approaching fire of liquidation; indeed, it may accelerate it.

Background

The Federal Court has confirmed that there is no difference between liquidation and deed administration of a corporate trustee in relation to dealings with trust assets and the distribution of proceeds of those assets for the benefit of creditors.

Background

Manpak operated as the trustee for the MP Unit Trust, which carried on the business of a product wholesaler. Under the Trust Deed, Manpak would be disqualified from holding office if it suffered an Event of Default, which included the appointment of an administrator.

The entitlement to recover remuneration and costs for work performed in conducting an external administration is an ever-present fundamental concern for insolvency practitioners.

In its recent judgment involving the PAS Group of companies[1], the Federal Court held that rent payable by the PAS Group during an extension of the period in which an administrator had been excused from personal liability (Standstill Period) is an expense properly incurred by a ‘relevant authority in carrying on the company’s business’ and is therefore a priority debt under s 556(1)(a) of the Corporations