It is not uncommon for administrators to be appointed in the period between a company being served with a creditor’s winding up application and the date on which that application is to be heard. Despite their appointment, and unless the administrator attempts to intervene, the Court can and often will hear the winding up application and, if appropriate, order that the company be wound up and terminate the administration.

Directors play a central role in the management of a company and are therefore pivotal to its growth and success. In addition to the day-to-day duties associated with operating and managing the business of a company, it is important that directors also understand the legal duties and obligations associated with their appointment.

Changes to the Australian Insolvency regime continue to progress through the legislature as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017. The amendments are intended to allow companies and directors protections whilst they informally restructure, rather than requiring potentially premature entry into formal insolvency proceedings. It is hoped this will increase the turn-around prospects of those companies.

In a recent article published in the Insolvency Law Journal[1], I discussed some of the difficulties encountered by liquidators and courts in trying to apply Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act to trustee companies. Liquidating a trustee company gives rise to an added layer of complexity in liquidations, with the liquidator obliged to follow not only the statutory regime, but to also comply with the equitable principles of trusts and potentially the trust deed itself. Trustee companies are the ‘square peg’ in the round hole of the Corporations Act.

A recent court decision is a timely reminder of the limitations that can affect a person’s ability to rely on set-off rights when a debtor or contract counterparty becomes insolvent.

In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs

This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court:

The Part 5.3A administration regime was introduced to facilitate orderly and timely outcomes for creditors. This is clearly evidenced by the relatively short time frame stipulated by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) between when the first and second creditors’ meetings are to be held.

The recent WA Supreme Court decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 illustrates the risk of relying on contractual and statutory set-offs where the counterparty has granted security to lenders in an insolvency situation.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 June 2017 and has had a second reading moved in the Senate. 

The Bill: