On 19 June 2019, the High Court delivered its judgment in one of the most hotly anticipated insolvency judgments this year, the Amerind appeal: Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth.

The High Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision and confirming (although for differing reasons) that:

It is a defence to an unfair preference claim to show there were no reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company.

Referred to as the ‘good faith defence’, the creditor has the onus of establishing the defence contained in section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Suspicion of insolvency

The courts have identified the following principles with respect to the good faith defence:

In this technical update we discuss several points of principle from the recent High Court decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20 (Carter).

For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.

The Government has now announced its intention to proceed with the introduction of a bill to establish a farm debt mediation scheme, based in many respects on comparable New South Wales legislation. It is important for secured lenders to farming enterprises to consider in advance the implications of the bill and the necessary changes to product design, documentation, client relationship management and enforcement processes which may be required.

The scheme is intended to provide for fair, equitable and timely resolution of farm debt issues with two key objectives:

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of AIG Australia Limited v Kaboko Mining Limited [2019] FCAFC 96, in which the Full Federal Court found that an insolvency exclusion in a D&O policy did not apply to exclude claims brought against directors and officers of a company under external administration.

What happened?

In its much anticipated decision, the High Court has unanimously dismissed the Amerind appeal.[1] This decision finally resolves recent uncertainty as to the proper application of trust assets in the liquidation of an insolvent corporate trustee.

In short, the High Court’s decision confirms that in the winding up of a corporate trustee:

Facts

Mr Lock and Mr Sheahan (the liquidators) performed their roles as administrators, and then as liquidators, of three companies.

The liquidators carried out numerous tasks across four work streams: (1) investigating the identities of a creditor and shareholders of one of the companies; (2) potential claims against the companies’ directors and a bank; (3) issues arising under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth); and (4) applications relating to receivers that had been appointed.

Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?

In O’Keeffe Heneghan Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Aus Life Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Rocky Neill Construction Pty Ltd (in liquidation) trading as KNF Group (a firm) (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1958, the NSW Supreme Court strongly reminded us of the superior priority that an authorised deposit-taking institute’s unregistered security interest (perfected by control) has over the interests of secured creditors perfected under the personal property securities regime. The proceedings involved three companies in liquidation (together known as KNF Group).