On 9 March 2018, in what was a highly anticipated judgment for many liquidators, the Queensland Court of Appeal reversed the controversial first instance Supreme Court decision in the matter of Linc Energy Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)1.

Background

Shortly prior to the appointment of liquidators to Linc Energy Limited (in Liquidation) (Linc) in May 2016, the Department of Environment & Heritage Protection (Department) issued an environmental protection order (EPO) to Linc in relation to its coal seam gas project at Chinchilla in Queensland.

The Queensland Court of Appeal has unanimously allowed an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (Linc Energy), holding it was possible to use a disclaimer notice to avoid the consequences of an environmental protection order (EPO) issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (EPA).

JWS has achieved an excellent result for the liquidators of the Gunns Group, with success in the Federal Court’s judgment in Bryant (Liquidator) v L.V. Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd, In the Matter of Gunns Limited (In Liq.) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] FCA 238.

The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.

The law is now clear. Or is it?

For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.

If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?

As part of the implementation of the Turnbull government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda, a suite of insolvency reform laws have been introduced, aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship rather than punishing corporate failure. The objective of these new laws is to provide viable but underperforming companies an opportunity to implement a turnaround strategy or sale of the business.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of SurfStitch Group Limited [2018] NSWSC 164, where the Court refused to allow administrators to value claims of class action group members at a nominal $1 for voting at the second creditors’ meeting.

What happened?

On 11 December 2017, the administrators of SurfStitch filed an application seeking orders:

Can you prefer one creditor by arranging a third party loan, the proceeds of which are paid directly to that creditor, without the arrangement being void against your trustee in bankruptcy? “Yes” says the Full Federal Court – thus confirming an important distinction between personal and corporate insolvency.

Rambaldi (Trustee) v Commissioner of Taxation, in the matter of Alex (Bankrupt) [2017] FCAFC 217

In a significant decision for the insurance industry, the Federal Court of Australia has granted leave to shareholders to bring a direct action against a company’s insurers where the (insured) company was in liquidation. This is one of the earliest cases to make use of the new Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Third Party Claim Act), and provides some useful guidance for the industry on how this new legislation will be applied.

The decision impacts plaintiff lawyers, policyholders and insurers alike. Importantly:

This article was first published in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday, 22 February.

In the five years to November 2017, AUD1.8 billion of GST revenue was written-off due to phoenixing – where companies are stripped of assets and liquidated, then restarted under a different name leaving creditors out of pocket.

This week’s TGIF considers the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Blakeley v CGU Insurance Ltd [2017] VSCA 378, which confirms the rights of third parties to seek direct access to proceeds of insurance.

The decision confirms that, in certain circumstances, third party creditors can commence proceedings against a defendant and also join the defendant’s insurers to those proceedings.