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

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).

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.

In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

Background

Anti-phoenix laws were introduced in 2020, however, it wasn’t until last week that a judgment enforced these laws in Court, setting out clear precedent for future cases. In the case of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Intellicomms) & Ors v Technologie Fluenti Pty Ltd (Technologie Fluenti), Associate Justice Gardiner observed that the case had “all the classic hallmarks of a phoenix transaction” before handing down his decision.