This week's TGIF considers In the matter of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228, in which Associate Justice Gardiner found that a Sale Agreement disposing of key assets to a related entity on the day of appointment of liquidators constituted a creditor-defeating disposition and therefore able to be set aside.

Key takeaways

The challenges faced by the construction industry are continuing to grow and insiders wonder when the storm is going to hit. For some, like Probuild, it already has. Rising inflation and the increasing cost of debt, labour shortages, supply chain delays and escalating cost of freight and materials are putting the industry under enormous pressure. Simultaneously Governments have invested heavily in building and construction to maintain growth in the economy.

The Supreme Court of Victoria is the first Australian court to test creditor-defeating disposition laws designed to defeat illegal phoenix activity: In this latest article, Maddocks Insolvency & Restructuring team unpack illegal phoenix activity, summarise the key takeaways from the recent case Re Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] VSC 228 (Re Intellicomms), and consider implications for insolvency practitioners, companies and directors.

What is phoenix activity and why is it illegal?

In brief: The Supreme Court of Queensland has ordered that an objector to an external administrator's remuneration application pay the administrator's costs of responding to the objections. This decision, which will be welcomed by external administrators, appears to be the first time such an order has been made in the insolvency jurisdiction.

Disclaimer of interest: Colin Biggers & Paisley acted for the Provisional Liqudiator in Michaela Manicaros v Commercial Images (Aust) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 83.

Faced with thousands of complex potential claims from creditors, and a soon-to-expire letter of comfort, the liquidators of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) sought creative and efficient relief in the Federal Court of Australia to implement an expedited adjudication process to adjudicate and admit these claims without creditors having to individually establish causation for their loss or damage: Woodhouse (liquidator), in the matter of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 600.

The liquidators of a company successfully applied to join the insurers of the directors of an insolvent company to court proceedings.

In Issue

As part of a claim against a company’s directors for insolvent trading, it became apparent that should the directors be found liable, they would be unable to pay the damages sought, and would become bankrupt. The liquidator brought an interlocutory application to join the company’s insurers that provided management liability cover in the relevant period, pursuant to of s117 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liquidation) and Aspirio Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 579 in which liquidators sought an order that a non-party creditor pay their legal costs for seeking directions from the Court.

Key Takeaways

Property claims, especially lien claims, are common in the current environment of supply chain disruption and delay. Most contractual, statutory and common law lien claims, including where the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) is involved, will turn on timing, scope and quantum arguments. In this article, we outline the usual levers in a lien dispute from the debtor and creditor perspectives and make some suggestions for getting to a commercial resolution.

The first case has been decided under Australia’s statutory powers to set aside “creditor defeating dispositions”.

This week's TGIF considers Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, in which the High Court overturned a finding by the Victorian Court of Appeal and confirmed that certificates of independent advice will not always protect lenders from an unconscionability claim.