Insolvency reform: let’s not forget about the scheme of arrangement regime (again!)

In brief

On 23 February 2016, Justice Brereton of the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down a decision In the matter ofIndependent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971(in liquidation) (No 2) that may significantly impact the economics of winding up of corporate trustees and the return to priority creditors such as employees.

In summary, the Court held that:

Background

On 7 December 2015, the Australian Government released its "National Innovation and Science Agenda" ("Agenda"). In the Agenda, the Government outlined its intention to make three significant reforms to Australia's insolvency laws, adopting the recommendations of the Productivity Commission ("Commission") in its report, "Business Set-Up, Transfer and Closure" ("Report"), released on the same day as the Agenda:

Key Points:

While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.

Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of In the matter of THO Services Limited [2016] NSWSC 509 in which the Court exercised its general power to extend the voluntary administration moratorium period to a commercial arbitration.

BACKGROUND

The increasing trend to use Third Party Declaratory Relief Applications against Insurers

Overview

A third party claimant, not a party to a policy of insurance, can seek recourse to the proceeds of that policy, through the application of either the Corporations Act (ss 562 and 601AG), the Bankruptcy Act (s117) or the Insurance Contracts Act (s 51).

The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Banksia Securities Limited (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[2016] NSWSC 357 in which the Court uses its broad remedial powers to appoint special purpose receivers.


BACKGROUND

The Federal Court of Australia in Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) [2016] FCA 323 rejected an application for approval of settlement under s 33V of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), confirming that the Court’s role is akin to a ‘guardian’ for the group members.

Background

When pursuing outstanding owners corporation fees, suing the right person or entity at the right time is critical. 

If you get this wrong, you will not recover any money.

So, who is the owner?

Section 3 of Owners Corporations Act 2006 and the Subdivision Act 1988 state:

“an owner is a person who has an estate in fee simple in the land (except a mortgagee), or is empowered by or under an Act to convey an estate in fee simple in the land in an identified folio under the Transfer of Land Act 1958.”