This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.

What happened?

On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.

Summary

This week’s TGIF considers a NSW Court of Appeal decision which confirms that liquidators who bring a claim for preference payments within the limitation period may amend that claim to capture additional transactions otherwise subject to a statutory bar.

Background

Sydney Recycling Park (SRP) provided “tipping services” to Cardinal Group (Cardinal), who were in the business of “waste management”. Cardinal ran into some financial difficulties and on 1 February 2012, it was placed into liquidation.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of Hastie Group Ltd (in liq) v Moore [2016] NSWCA 305 in which the Court held that privilege attached to an expert report prepared for the purpose of obtaining litigation funding.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The Existing System

Despite its introduction to the Slovak legal system in 2006, current laws on debt relief within the framework of bankruptcy of natural persons have not been a viable solution.

Basing the legal institute of debt relief on a two-step procedure:

• starting with bankruptcy (i.e. liquidation of (all) the debtor’s assets)
• then followed by a three-year trial period at the end of which the court releases a resolution on the possibility of personal bankruptcy

has in fact hindered debtors from filing.

Two major Slovakian construction companies, both heavily dependent on large state contracts, have recently been restructured. Both of these cases have proven that Slovakian entrepreneurs, even those who live off of public money, perceive and utilise the current regulation of the restructuring procedure as a “legally safe way” to restart their businesses and get rid of a large portion of creditors. This option is viable also in a moment, when the only solution clearly is a bankruptcy petition.

The Federal Court has recently handed down a decision that clarifies the power of receivers to administer trust property under a debenture. In Benton, in the matter of Mackay Rural Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2014] FCA 1285, the Federal Court confirmed that section 420 of the Corporations Act 2001 (“the Act”) confers upon receivers a power to dispose of trust property, provided that this is necessary for the purpose for which they have been appointed.

FACTS

Slovakia is getting ready for a major amendment of the Commercial Code, which will also amend the Slovak Act on Bankruptcy and Restructuring. Significant changes are expected in the corporate as well as bankruptcy and restructuring law sector which is underperforming and provides insufficient protection to creditors, despite many previous attempts to improve the regulation of this area.

The Supreme Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in Soil and Contracting Pty Ltd v Boban Pty Ltd [2014] WASC 402 which confirmed that, notwithstanding the operation of s 459R of the Corporations Act, the slip rule is available to extend the time limit within which a winding up application may be determined.

SECTION 459R

Connections Total Fitness for the Family Pty Limited (Connections) operated a gym on premises owned by Selkirk Pastoral Co Pty Limited (Selkirk). The gym business ultimately failed and ceased trading when administrators were appointed on 4 October 2013. Connections’ assets were limited to some cash at bank and a $1.1m claim against Selkirk.