This week’s TGIF examines the recent changes to Australia’s insolvency regime, the potential implications for business and considerations for creditors in light of the impact from COVID-19.

The Australian Government has now passed theCoronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020. The bill was fast-tracked through both houses of parliament with bipartisan support on 23 March 2020 and makes significant changes to Australia’s insolvency regime over the next six months.

What happened?

On 24 March 2020, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 received Royal Assent, meaning that the changes proposed in that bill to "lessen the threat of insolvency" for individuals and businesses in the current coronavirus pandemic have now become law. The changes will be in place for a period of six months starting from today and ending on 25 September 2020, unless this grace period is extended in the future.

By way of summary, the legislative changes involve the following measures:

On 4 February 2020, the Federal Court of Australia considered the circumstances in which it might be said that a provisional liquidator of a company ought not be appointed as the official liquidator because of an alleged "reasonable apprehension of bias". The issue was ventilated before the Court in the matter of  Frisken (as receiver of Avant Garde Investments Pty Ltd v Cheema [2020] FCA 98.

Appointing a provisional liquidator

Entering into liquidation can be a scary time for any company and its officers, even one which chooses to do so voluntarily. However, the directors, shareholders and creditors of a company entering into liquidation do not have absolute discretion as to who they may appoint as the liquidator of the company. Together, the Corporations Act and common law principles of independence regulate the eligibility of a liquidator to be appointed to a company, and to remain in the appointment.

Overarching eligibility

In the recent decision of Boensch as Trustee of the Boensch Trust v Scott Darren Pascoe [2019] HCA 49, the High Court has clarified whether property held by a bankrupt on trust for another vests in the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy, and the circumstances in which a trustee in bankruptcy will have reasonable cause to lodge a caveat to protect an interest in the trust property.

Background

In the recent decision of In the matter of Parkway One Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 1495 (Parkway), Rees J dismissed an application to terminate the winding up of Parkway One Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (the Company) due to inconclusive evidence as to the solvency of the Company and, having regard to the non-compliance by its director of her statutory duties and the likelihood of the Company not being able to service the current and foreseen indebtedness, her Honour held that it would be contrary to commercial morality to terminate the wi

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Dudley (Liquidator) v RGH Construction Fitout & Maintenance Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCA 1355, where the Court exercised its discretion to cure a procedural irregularity in a mothership proceeding.

This week’s TGIF considers the latest chapter in the story of Legend International Holdings Inc, where the Court of Appeal considered whether Legend was insolvent, whether mining tenements held by Legend’s subsidiary constituted ‘readily realisable assets’, and whether various deeds entered into by Legend were void as uncommercial transactions.

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court which considered whether funds held in certain bank accounts of a failed Ponzi scheme should be returned to investors or paid to creditors of the companies.

What happened?

Since freezing orders were obtained by ASIC in 2017, details surrounding the infamous Courtenay House ‘Ponzi’ scheme operated from a small office at Westfield in Bondi have slowly emerged.

This week’s TGIF article considers the case of Kelly, in the matter of Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 5) [2019] FCA 1341, in which liquidators of two linked investment companies in Australia and New Zealand sought to hold concurrent hearings in the Federal Court and in the High Court of New Zealand.

What happened?