A recent Federal Court decision has provided some useful insights on how related party loans will be considered in an insolvency context, particularly in relation to unreasonable director-related claims against directors and their relatives. For insolvency practitioners it also provides insight into how the assignment of claims might effectively be used to mitigate litigation risks.
Introduction
Two recent cases from New Zealand demonstrate how an equitable lien can arise in insolvency to elevate the interest of unsecured purchasers of goods to secured status.
Key takeouts
On 22 Sept 2023, the Australian government responded to the Whittaker Review, releasing the Personal Property Securities Amendment Bill 2023 for public consultation until 17 Nov 2023.
Overview of the Whittaker review and Government's response
Liquidators and creditors should be aware of the High Court's analysis of the limits of set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
The economic impacts of COVID-19 are unexpected and significant. While the Australian Government has announced a number of temporary reforms to address these impacts, there remains risk for directors of companies that are unable to pay their debts as and when they are due.
On 19 June 2019, the High Court delivered its much anticipated decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20.
The Western Australian Court of Appeal has ruled that giving security to a Bank does not destroy mutuality for the purposes of statutory set-off if the security allows the debtor to use assets to pay its debts in the ordinary course of business.
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case