Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.

In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.

Key Takeaways

In the case of Anchorage Capital Master Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025 (Anchorage v Sparkes), the Supreme Court of NSW considered the obligations of company officers to sophisticated commercial lending entities, and whether company officers could be personally liable for making misleading statements.

Significance

For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.

For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.

Summary

On 16 December 2021, judgment was handed down in Federal Court of Australia proceedings QUD 31 of 2021, which found that set off provisions under the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (Act) cannot be relied on to reduce an unfair preference claim under section 588FA of the Act.

The judgment will likely see practical consequences in the increased capacity of liquidators to acquire voidable transactions under the statutory priority regime.

In a win for liquidators, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia this week found that a creditor cannot rely on set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 to reduce an unfair preference claim under section 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act).

The Full Federal Court has held that a bankrupt taxpayer had no standing to seek review of an objection decision as she was not a person “dissatisfied” within the meaning of s 14ZZ of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent ruling of the Queensland Supreme Court in Re Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Ltd[2021] QSC 310, where the Court dismissed an application to terminate the winding up of Gulf Aboriginal Development Company Limited (Gulf).

Key Takeaways

InAustralian Securities and Investments Commission v Marco (no 9) [2021] FCA 1306 the Administrators brought an interlocutory application seeking remuneration orders pursuant to section 60-10(1)(c) of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPSC) for the administration of the second defendant. The application was opposed by the Liquidators of the second defendant.

Public examinations are a powerful process for a liquidator to explore the reasons for a company’s failure, identify any claims the liquidator or the company might have and assess recoverability prospects following any successful claim.

In a similar vein, liquidators might also obtain document production orders against natural persons and corporate entities. Such document production orders are often obtained in advance of examinations, and can assist the liquidator in its investigations and preparation for the examinations.