Two recent cases provide a timely reminder of the opportunities offered by creditor-funded litigation as a mechanism for bringing funds into what would otherwise be unfunded administrations. Both cases are examples of flexible and “light touch” exercises of judicial discretion which duly recognise the constraints and complex commercial considerations invariably encountered by liquidators in unfunded liquidations.

Approval of litigation funding agreements

Can liquidators disclose legal advice to creditors without waiving privilege? Common interest privilege may assist.

Common interest privilege

Legal professional privilege protects communications between a lawyer and client created for the dominant purpose of seeking or providing legal advice or for current or anticipated litigation.

If advice is disclosed to third parties, there may be a waiver of that privilege.

Liquidators of insolvent Australian companies often pursue directors of the failed company in recovery proceedings for the benefit of creditors. Following a High Court of Australia decision in April 2016, it is now clear that a liquidator can join liability insurers of defendant directors in such proceedings, even when the insurer has denied liability under a policy. The liquidator, even though not a party to the contract, may then seek a declaration in the same proceedings that the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured defendant.

In CGU Insurance Limited v Blakeley [2016] HCA 2 previously summarised by William Roberts earlier this year the High Court of Australia found that a potential plaintiff can pursue a claim against an insolvent company’s insurer under that company’s insurance policy.

Two’s company when it comes to debt funding. Surely, three makes things a little crowded? It doesn’t have to be that way.

After the SAM HAWK decision in September 2016 restored the status quo in the recognition of foreign maritime liens in Australia (see our briefing http://www.hfw.com/Arrest-of-the-SAM-HAWK-October-2016) two Federal Court decisions in November 2016 bring the year towards a close with the Federal Court’s jurisdiction and application of the Admiralty Act being confirmed on established and predictable grounds.

Insolvency proceedings can often be a very chaotic and drawn out process. Amidst the flurry of activity undertaken by creditors, liquidators and directors, a question to consider is what happens when we throw an insurer’s rights of subrogation into the mix.

Subrogation

Subrogation is the act of one party (normally an insurer) having standing to prosecute a cause of action in the name of another, where the former has reimbursed the latter for losses.

‘Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .
Nobody knows, the way it feels
Caught between Heaven and the Highway
Shipping steel, shipping steel . . .’ ¹

On 7 April 2016, Administrators were appointed to South Australian-based steelmaker and iron ore miner Arrium, which reportedly owed approximately AUD4.3 billion to its lenders, suppliers and staff. The appointment covered 94 direct and indirect subsidiaries of Arrium Limited (the Arrium Companies), which at the time employed around 8,100 employees and contractors.

After a fraught period as an ASX listed company, including the near collapse of iron ore miner and major customer, Atlas Iron, the transport company McAleese Limited has entered voluntary administration.

SUMMARY

This week’s TGIF considers Wood v Astra Resources Ltd (UK Company No 07620218) [2016] FCA 1192, in which the Federal Court was asked to recognise a foreign proceeding under the Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.

BACKGROUND