When a Bank appoints a receiver under a charge, section 433 of theCorporations Act 2001 (Act) requires the proceeds of certain chargedassets to be used by the Receiver to satisfy certain employee entitlementsin priority to the Bank. Section 561 of the Act has a similar effect where acompany is in liquidation, but only if there are insufficient uncharged assets available.

The Supreme Court of Queensland decision of First Strategic Corporation Limited (In Liq) and Anor v Chan and Ors [2014] QSC 60 gives insolvency practitioners guidance as to what consideration can be taken into account when assessing the solvency of a company by the means and preparedness of someone to support the company.

Background

Secured creditors should not allow a liquidator to sell a secured asset without first:

Despite the power to provide directions to Administrators and Liquidators specifically provided in the Corporations Act, one consistent theme arises in the cases – the Courts will not second-guess purely commercial decisions of practitioners.

In Vasudevan v Becon Contructions (Australia) Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 14, the Victorian Court of Appeal recently delivered a decision which has broadened the scope of an unreasonable director-related transaction under section 588FDA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)(Act). Senior Associate, Elisabeth Pickthall and Associate, Stefano Calabretta discuss the case.

The facts

A recent case involving frozen funds held by American Express in the US has highlighted the difficulty of enforcing freezing orders internationally. In this particular instance, Warren Jiear, Head of Piper Alderman’s Insolvency team, was able to use this to assist liquidator, Blair Pleash of Hall Chadwick, to recover substantial funds owing to an insolvent company.

In brief

When the liquidator of a company comes knocking on a creditor’s door, it is to echoes of "Queue jumper!" reverberating in the background. 

Essentially, one of a liquidator's first tasks when appointed is to identify whether any creditors have been given 'preferential  treatment' - that is, whether they have been paid some or all of their debt just prior to the company's liquidation and at the expense of other creditors.

In Re John Pettit Pty Limited (Subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 728, the Supreme Court of NSW considered an application by the deed administrators of John Pettit Pty Ltd (John Pettit) seeking directions to sell property potentially owned by third parties and orders which limited the Deed Administrators’ personal liability in relation to the sale.

BACKGROUND

The Supreme Court of Western Australia has recently held that a creditor’s claim against a guarantor was extinguished some years earlier, under the guarantor’s deed of company arrangement (DOCA).

The reasoning behind Le Miere J’s decision in Australian Gypsum Industries Pty Ltd v Dalesun Holding Pty Ltd is that a DOCA extinguishes future liabilities arising under an agreement made prior to the execution of the DOCA. This includes those arising under pre-existing guarantees.