In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.

This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.

Background

Our clients must be sick to death about hearing us comment on the Australian Sons of Gwalia saga (which we have been doing for more than three years) but finally there is good news to report. The short version of the saga is thatSons of Gwalia was a decision by Australia's highest court that shareholder damages claims should be treated as pari passu unsecured claims in an Australian insolvency proceeding.

Under section 449E(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court may review the remuneration of the administrator of a company on the application of the administrator. In the recent decision of Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Morgan, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered the issue of whether an administrator could be precluded from access to the abovementioned statutory provision for the review by the Court of remuneration already determined.

The Facts

The New South Wales Supreme Court decision in Rapid Metal Developments (Aust) Pty Ltd v Rildean Pty Ltd (No 3) examined the Australian statutory provision that is broadly equivalent to s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act (NZ).

Mana bought proceedings against the liquidators of James for legal costs resulting from the liquidator's decision to continue an appeal against Mana, in respect of successful specific performance proceedings brought by Mana against James.

Fodare Pty Ltd v Shearn considered the admissibility of transcripts of public examinations made under Australia's Corporations Act 2001.

Introduction

On 26 November 2010, the Federal Parliament passed the Corporations Amendment (Sons of Gwalia) Bill 2010 (“Bill”). The Bill amends section 563A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (“Act”) such that any claim brought by a person against a company that arises from the buying, selling, holding or other dealing with a shareholding will be postponed in an external administration until all other claims have been paid. The Bill has the effect of reversing the High Court decision of Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic [2007] HCA 1.

Statutory Demands pursuant to the Corporations Act are a mechanism available to creditors for the payment of debt. Upon the expiry of a Statutory Demand, the Corporations Act presumes that the company is insolvent and allows the entity making the demand to apply to the court for their winding up on grounds of insolvency.

The Government has passed amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Regulations) to overturn the impact of the decision in Sons of Gwalia v Margaretic (2007) 231 CLR 160 (Sons of Gwalia) and reinstate the longheld convention that creditors’ rights take precedence over shareholders’ rights in the instance of a winding up.

What was the outcome of Sons of Gwalia?