The first High Court decisions in 2023; Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 (‘Metal Manufactures’) and Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (‘Bryant’) have provided the final word on preference claims, establishing once and for all that:

1. set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’) does not apply to unfair transactions; and

2. the peak indebtedness rule does not apply.

When a borrowing company goes into administration, lenders will want to enforce their security immediately. However, administration risk delays lenders from enforcing their security during the moratorium period without leave from the court or consent from the administrator.

This article provides an insight into administration risk, explains ways to mitigate administration risk and how featherweight securities can be effectively used.

As the CODIV-19 pandemic escalates and the Australian Government implements measures to address the ongoing health crisis, the toll on the Australian economy will increase.

In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case known as Stern v. Marshall. The U.S. Supreme Court held that filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case does not constitute consent to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over all counterclaims or actions that the bankruptcy estate may later bring against the creditor.

In fact, filing the proof of claim constitutes consent only to those claims or actions that either (1) stem from the bankruptcy case itself; or (2) are necessary to the resolution of the creditor’s proof of claim.  

When a traditional nonbanking company files a case under the Bankruptcy Code, a judge is appointed to be the neutral arbiter of disputes that arise between the debtor and its creditors.

Introduction