This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court of Australia decision (Connelly (liquidator) v Papadopoulos, in the matter of TSK QLD Pty Ltd (in liq) [2024] FCA 888). In the case, it was determined that a restructuring adviser who engineered an asset-stripping scheme may be found liable for the full value of the loss arising out of the scheme.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF summarises the Federal Court of Australia’s recent decision granting leave to proceed against a company despite the appointment of a small business restructuring (SBR) practitioner under Pt 5.3B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).

Key takeaways

An extension to the Debt Warehousing Scheme has been announced by the Revenue Commissioners.

The Debt Warehousing Scheme (DWS) was introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide support to businesses that were experiencing liquidity and trading difficulties. It has permitted businesses to “warehouse” or defer payment of their tax debts for a specified period.

Ordinarily, in civil proceedings a successful party in litigation will be awarded their costs.

This is known as the legal rule or principle that costs follow the event. But a decision of the Court of Appeal in 2021 suggests that this rule may not necessarily apply in examinership proceedings.

Since the Veolia case in the mid 2000s the Irish courts have taken the view that the costs follow the event rule need not necessarily be followed in every instance and that they have a certain discretion to depart from this default rule.

The existence of a personal guarantee over a debt may affect the enforceability of that debt after a company has gone through an examinership process.

A creditor’s ability to enforce a debt subject to a guarantee after a period of examinership is dependent upon that guarantor having been granted a right to vote at the creditors’ meeting approving the scheme of arrangement.

The new formal rescue process for small and medium sized companies, SCARP, is now formally a part of Irish law. The legislation underpinning the new rescue process was officially commenced on Tuesday 7 December 2021.

The High Court recently refused a winding up petition brought by a landlord against a tenant company that had not paid rent on its commercial premises for more than a year.

Lestown Property Limited v The Companies Act 2014 [2021] IEHC 513.

A dispute arose between a landlord, Lestown Property, and a tenant that operated a Leisureplex in Charlestown Shopping Centre. The Leisureplex was only accessible through the lobby of an adjacent cinema. The cinema was leased to a separate entity and was closed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

The Government has issued a press release stating that it has approved the publication of an upcoming Bill providing the legislative basis for a new insolvency process: the Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (“SCARP”). The announcement follows the publication of the General Scheme of the Bill last month and its indications that it would be prioritising this legislation.