Introduction
Under reforms commencing in July 2018, Australia will have new insolvency laws which will limit the exercise of contract rights to terminate for insolvency. Partners David McIntosh and Robyn Chatwood, explain how these reforms will impact the retail sector in Australia, including suppliers of goods and services and lenders.
Background
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).
Introduction – why does this matter?
In January 2018, the Aviation Working Group (“AWG”)1 as part of its review of closing opinion practice, released a revised Form of Cape Town Convention Closing Opinion. The aim of the review was to provide further guidance and consistency in the approach legal practitioners adopt in respect of Cape Town and the State of Registry Jurisdiction.
The AWG was founded in 1994, with stated aims of contributing to the development and acceptance of policies and laws that:
facilitate advanced international aviation financing and leasing, and
The Victorian Court of Appeal has handed down it’s decision on appeal from Re Amerind (receivers and managers apptd)(in liq) [2017] VSC 127; (2017) 320 FLR 118. The appeal judgment is now up on Austlii and can be read here: Commonwealth of Australia v Byrnes and Hewitt as receivers and managers of Amerind Pty Ltd (receivers and managers apptd)(in liq) [2018] VSCA 41.
In good news for liquidators, the Federal Court’s decision in Marsden (liquidator) v CVS Lane PV Pty Limited Re: Pentridge Village (in which Dentons acted for the liquidator) confirms that time will be extended for liquidators who are unable to bring voidable transaction proceedings within the relevant timeframe due to a lack of funding.
The case also has wider implications. It could be relied upon by liquidators to justify subsequent claims which could otherwise have been brought at an earlier stage if funding had been available.
In Re Atwell & Co Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] VSC 683, Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of Victoria considered the application of the ‘proportionality’ principle in determining liquidator remuneration.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of Kreab Gavin Anderson (Australia) Ltd, in the matter of Kreab Gavin Anderson (Australia) Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1473 and an application for approval of remuneration for work carried out by the applicants as administrators and then liquidators of the plaintiff company, in circumstances where those appointments were subsequently found to be invalid.
WHAT HAPPENED?
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: