Like the mythical bird that dies and then resurrects, phoenixing is the deliberate liquidation of a company to avoid paying tax, creditors or employees and then the ‘resurrection’ of the business through a different entity.

It is illegal and particularly prevalent in the construction sector. It’s time for the states to take action against phoenixing through better licensing of builders.

In its recent judgment of Morgan,In the matter of Brighton Hall Securities Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] FCA 970, the Federal Court of Australia determined that a liquidator is entitled to retain certain remuneration and other expenses from the proceeds of a claim under a professional indemnity insurance policy in preference to claimants, who would otherwise have a statutory priority under section 562 of the Corporations Act.

BACKGROUND

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.

In New Age Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Etlis, in the matter of Etlis[2013] FCA 884, an unsecured creditor applied to set aside a Personal Insolvency Agreement (PIA)and also sought a sequestration order against the debtor’s estate.  The Federal Court considered whether the terms of the PIA were unreasonable or not calculated to benefit creditors generally.

The Tax Office (ATO) has received significant media attention recently and continues to feature regularly as an applicant in many of the ‘Winding Up’ proceedings before the Courts.  The majority of these proceedings are reflective of an aggressive strategy by the ATO to take strong action to recover outstanding debts.

In Lehman Brothers Australia Limited, in the matter of Lehman Brothers Australia Limited (in liquidation) (No 2) [2013] FCA 965, the Federal Court again confirmed that schemes of arrangement are a viable restructuring tool to compromise claims involving a class of creditors and third parties.

BACKGROUND

A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia has found that the arrest of vessels pursuant to existing security rights, such as maritime liens under Australian admiralty legislation, have priority over cross-border insolvency applications under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

Introduction

Summary

This decision is a testament to the flexibility of schemes of arrangement in Australia as a means of effecting settlements with a company’s creditors as well as third parties such as the company’s insurers. The Federal Court also demonstrated its propensity to take a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a “compromise or arrangement” to enliven its jurisdiction to convene a meeting of creditors for the purpose of considering a proposed scheme of arrangement.

Section 560 of the Corporations Act provides that a person who loans money to a company in liquidation, for the purposes of making a payment towards employee wages and other employee benefits, will have the same right of priority as the employees would have had in the winding up of the company.