The Facts

A liquidator applied for permission to amend his claim for fraudulent trading. The claim against the respondents related to purported defrauding of HMRC for non-payment of VAT.

The facts

The Applicant granted two guarantees to a bank in 2006 and 2007 in respect of two facility letters. The bank assigned the Second Facility and the benefit of the First Guarantee to the Respondent. The amounts due under the Second Facility fell due for payment on 31 March 2008 and were only demanded for payment in 2015.

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.

In a series of recent decisions1, the Federal Court of Australia has held that section 588FL of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) operates such that any new security granted by a company in external administration2. that could only be perfected by registration on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR), and which is not the subject of an effective registration made before the appointment of the external administrator, will be ineffective3.

The Facts

In between the presentation of a winding up petition and making of a winding up order, a company entered into a settlement agreement with the Respondent, who founded the company and was previously a shareholder and director of the company.

The Decision

Yesterday in Canberra, a significant step forward for Australian insolvency law reform was taken: Parliament passed the much anticipated "safe harbor" for directors in relation to insolvent trading liability and moratorium on reliance by solvent counterparties on “ipso facto” clauses in voluntary administration and creditors schemes of arrangement.

Key Points

On the key points:

In a wide-reaching judgment concerning an appeal by Mighty River International in the administration of Mesa Minerals, the Western Australian Court of Appeal, has recognised that “holding” Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is permissible under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

The key points – Holding DOCAs as a flexible framework

The key points for insolvency and turnaround professionals to take from Mighty River International v Hughes are:

In a decision of importance for liquidators and litigation funders, the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Perrine v Carrello has further explained the important issue of how to determine the amount of compensation recoverable by liquidators where insolvent trading has occurred.

In a wide-reaching judgment concerning an appeal by Mighty River International in the administration of Mesa Minerals, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recognised that a "holding" Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) is permissible under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

The key points - Holding DOCAs as a flexible framework

The key points for insolvency and turnaround professionals to take from Mighty River International v. Hughes are:

The facts

A former bankrupt had purported claims against a firm of solicitors arising pre-bankruptcy, which vested in his subsequently appointed trustee in bankruptcy. The debtor wrote to both the Official Receiver (OR) and, post appointment, the trustee in bankruptcy, offering to buy the claims. The trustee subsequently disclaimed the claims. The debtor alleged that the claims had already re-vested in him following his notice to both the trustee and the OR.