Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.

A key part of the international scheme landscape

The use of creditors' schemes of arrangement is on the rise in Australia (as we discussed in our previous article - Update on Creditors Schemes of Arrangement in Australia). Along the way the Australian courts have made valuable contributions to international scheme jurisprudence. In this article we look at some of these contributions and then explore how Australian law might be further developed to remain a leading jurisdiction for creditors' schemes.

While the High Court has provided some clarity on the operation of the statutory priority regime, insolvency practitioners will still need to tread carefully when dealing with corporate trustees.

For insolvency practitioners who need clarity on how receivers and/or liquidators should pay, out of trust assets, priority employee claims arising from trust liabilities, the High Court's decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] HCA 20 (Amerind) is a welcome result.

A recent Full Court decision is a win for directors who hold D&O insurance policies, as well as those seeking to bring proceedings against directors of an insolvent company – probably to the dismay of insurers.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent insolvent trading claim involving novel questions in relation to privilege against self-incrimination and the apportionment of liability between successive directors.

Background

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).

This week’s TGIF considers Re GGA Lifestyle Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Woodhouse [2019] WASC 167, where the Supreme Court of Western Australia clarified that a voluntary administrator of a company in administration is able to claim costs of care, preservation and realisation of partnership assets of the company in administration through an equitable lien in the same way liquidators can.

What happened?

It’s tempting for a company director to not respond to a liquidator’s request to produce financial records if they contain incriminating material, but is it wise?