This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Boart Longyear Limited [2017] NSWSC 537 in which the NSW Supreme Court made orders to assist with the restructuring of a group of companies to the ultimate benefit of creditors.

BACKGROUND

A group of companies in financial difficulty sought the Court’s approval of two interdependent creditors’ schemes of arrangement which would effect a restructuring of the group’s financial affairs. The group had operations both in Australia and the US.

This week’s TGIF considers Linc Energy Ltd (in Liq) v Chief Executive Dept of Environment & Heritage Protection [2017] QSC 53, in which the Queensland Supreme Court directed that the liquidators of Linc Energy were not justified in causing it to fail to comply with an environmental protection order

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers an objection by directors and related-party creditors to a liquidator retaining solicitors who had previously acted for a substantial creditor in proceedings against the company.

What happened?

On 15 August 2016, a statutory demand was issued to the operator of a Chinese dumpling restaurant. The restaurant operator failed to comply with the demand and was wound up by order of the Court. The petitioning creditor also obtained orders for the appointment of a liquidator to the restaurant operator.

The procedure for an application to Court for the appointment of an Administrator pursuant to paragraph 12 of Schedule B1 IA 86 is covered by r3.3-3.15 of the 2016 rules.

Key points to note:

The procedure for Debt Relief Orders ("DRO") is unchanged, possibly because it is a comparatively new process having only come into force in 2009. However there has been some shuffling of rules numbers, in an effort to regularise and make the structure more logical.

Eligibility

To be granted a DRO, the debtor:

Section 216 continues to apply to prohibit the re-use of a name or sufficiently similar name where oldco and newco have common directors.

The relevant rules now dealing with the exceptions are contained in new rules 22.1 - 22.7.

The three exceptions remain broadly the same but there are some key differences to note.

Exceptions to the prohibition

The Appeals process is governed by Rules 12.59; 12.61 and Schedule 11. The old corresponding provisions were Rules 7.47 and 7.49A.

The major change to the provisions is that there is now clarification on appealing decisions made by District Judges. The new rules provide that these appeals will now lie either to a High Court Judge in a District Registry or a Registrar in Bankruptcy at the High Court. This was previously the case, but was only inserted into the old rules by way of an Amendment - they now come fully under the scope of the rules.

The out of Court appointment processes are broadly similar to the processes under the Insolvency Rules 1986 with some minor amendments. The most significant change is the abolition of the prescribed forms for appointment documents.

Whatever type of appointment (out of Court by company/directors, out of Court by Qualifying Floating Charge Holder ("QFCH"), application to Court), the Consent to Act form and contents is dealt with by r3.2.

Appointment out of Court by directors/the Company

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision in which relief was sought under section 588FM of the Corporations Act to ensure a security interest perfected after the ‘critical time’ did not automatically vest.

What happened?

On 7 April 2016, administrators were appointed to OneSteel. OneSteel, a member of the Arrium Group of Companies, subsequently entered into a deed of company arrangement.

Applications

Rule 12 sets out rules relating to applications, (excluding administration applications, winding up petitions and creditors' bankruptcy petitions) including: