This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the High Court of Australia, in which a 4:3 majority held that a former trustee is not owed any fiduciary obligation by a successor trustee.

Key takeaways

In Davis-Jacenko v Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 702, McGrath J delivered an extempore decision, appointing provisional liquidators in respect of Roxy’s Bootcamp Pty Limited (theCompany). His Honour stated that it was “a paradigm case” for the court to intervene to preserve the status quo.

Key Takeaways

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 (the “Employment Act”) was signed into law on 9 May 2024 albeit the provisions have not yet commenced. The General Scheme of Companies (Corporate Governance, Enforcement and Regulatory Provisions) Bill 2024 (the “Companies Bill”) was published in March this year and is expected to be enacted later this year. Both make significant changes to the restructuring and insolvency regime. We will continue to keep you apprised of developments regarding the commencement of the Act.

When do amounts owed to a company constitute ‘circulating assets’ and how should they be distributed? This crucial question has not always been answered predictably in recent cases. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Resilient Investment Group Pty Ltd v Barnet and Hodgkinson as liquidators of Spitfire Corporation Limited (in liq) [2023] NSWCA 118 has provided a framework for navigating the relevant principles in the context of a priority dispute over R&D tax refunds.

Key takeaways

On 11 July 2023, Mr Justice Michael Quinn delivered his judgment in the matter of Mac-Interiors Limited (High Court Record No. 2023/90 COS) (the “Company”), which confirmed and clarified ‘a significant and previously undecided point’ regarding the jurisdiction of the Irish courts to appoint an Examiner to a non-EU registered company with its centre of main interests (“COMI”) in Ireland. McCann FitzGerald act for the Company which brought the application.

On 30 May 2023, Mac-Interiors Limited (the “Company”), a private limited company incorporated and registered in Northern Ireland, but with its COMI in Ireland, presented a petition seeking the appointment of an examiner. On the same day, orders were made, amongst other things, appointing Kieran Wallace of Interpath Advisory as examiner on an interim basis pending the hearing of the Petition.

In both jurisdictions the general consensus was that where a company is insolvent, the fiduciary duty of its directors to act in the interest of the company (Irish law), or in the way they consider, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company in the interests of its members as a whole (English law), altered such that directors were required to treat creditors' interests in priority to shareholders' interests. Directors must consider the interests of creditors as a whole, and not just the interests of any individual creditor or class of creditors.

The director of an insolvent company appealed a restriction order made against him. The order prevented the appellant from acting as a company director or secretary for a 5-year period under section 819 of the Companies Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to satisfy the court that he acted responsibly in the conduct of the company’s affairs.

The EU Directive on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks (the“Directive”) precipitated a pan-European review by Member States of their corporate restructuring statutes. Several Member States (including Germany and the Netherlands), as well as the United Kingdom, made sweeping changes to their insolvency processes, in some cases introducing entirely new restructuring mechanisms. By contrast, Ireland preserved its examinership regime, introduced over 30 years ago.

In the recent case of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, the High Court has allowed an appeal relating to asset-based lending (ABL) and the enforceability of security associated with these loans. The High Court held that whilst asset-based lending itself is not unconscionable, certain conduct may render loans and security unenforceable. The decision is a reminder that lenders should ensure the circumstances of potential borrowers are fully scrutinised prior to lending.