This week’s TGIF is the first of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

This first part looks closely at what the Court of Appeal did – and did not – decide in relation to how receivers and liquidators should deal with property recovered pursuant to an insolvent corporate trustee’s right of indemnity.

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.

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:

This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court:

This week’s TGIF considersAlleasing Pty Ltd, in the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Ltd in which the Court considered the potential prejudice to creditors in extending the time for registration of security interests

Background

This week’s TGIF considers Bunnings Group Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] WASC 132, where the Court considered whether the order of registration of caveats determined the priority of competing unregistered charges.

BACKGROUND

Bunnings and Hanson each supplied building materials to Capital Works prior to Capital Works’ liquidation by means of a creditors’ voluntary winding up.

Creation of the charges

This week’s TGIF considers the recent proposals to crackdown on rogue directors and reduce the burden on FEG to pay unpaid workers.

A last resort – but for who?

On 17 May 2017, the Federal Government published a consultation paper inviting submissions on options for law reform to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (‘FEG’) scheme.

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