Introduction

In the latest episode in one of Australia's most complex and lengthy commercial disputes, the Western Australia Court of Appeal recently dismissed an appeal by a syndicate of banks (the Banks) from a decision in favour of the liquidators of the Bell Group (the Group): Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Limited (in liquidation) [No 3] [2012] WASCA 157.

The Government has reintroduced the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 into Parliament to give effect to the Government's decision to reverse the High Court's decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic.

In Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2014] NZHC 567, the High Court found that receivers are not personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 (the Act) for body corporate levies under the Unit Titles Act 2010.

The facts

More than two years after the Commerce Committee reported back on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, Parliament took up the second reading of the Bill late last week – the next step in what has been a long and protracted process.

The original Bill proposed a negative licensing regime, under which the Registrar of Companies would have the power to prohibit individuals from acting as insolvency practitioners.

More than two years after the Commerce Select Committee reported back on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill, the Bill has passed its second reading.

The Court of Appeal last week extended the armoury available to liquidators seeking to unwind a voidable transaction. Although the Companies Act sets out a procedure for liquidators to follow, the Court held that this is not exclusive, and that liquidators can also serve a statutory demand seeking payment of a voidable debt. Is this a shortcut likely to save costs, or is it a false economy?

The voidable claim

Receivers are well aware that they can limit or exclude their personal liability on a contract by appropriately worded language, in accordance with the Receiverships Act. But what about litigation? Is a receiver sufficiently protected against a personal costs award if the litigation is in the name of the company rather than the receiver?

Section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) provides a defence to creditors who have received a payment found to be a voidable transaction under section 292 of the Act. One of the elements that creditors need to establish under this defence is that they either provided value to the company or changed their position in reliance on the validity of the payment.

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal (Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 91) will make it very difficult for creditors to successfully raise the good faith defence under section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 to a voidable claim by a liquidator.

When insolvency practitioners consider who may be held accountable for corporate failures, auditors are often near the top of the list. It is easy to see why. From a practical perspective, auditors are relatively likely to be able to meet good claims, and from a legal perspective it is easy to identify the duties that the auditors owed and, in an unfortunate number of cases, breached.