In the recent court decision of Trenfield v HAG Import Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2018] QDC 107, the liquidators recovered unfair preferences from a retention of title creditor who argued it was a secured creditor.

The issues

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.

Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.

A snapshot of the court decisions

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.

Following a suite of recent reforms to Australian insolvency laws, liquidators are now able to assign rights to sue, conferred on them personally by the Corporations Act. The new power to assign is broad. It appears that the implications of the power will need to be clarified by the judiciary before they are fully understood.

In this article, we look at the issues that arise from these legislative amendments along with the opportunities created.

It is common for commercial contracts to contain ipso facto clauses, which allow a party to terminate or modify the terms of the contract where the other party experiences an insolvency event. A concern addressed by the Government is that these clauses can prevent a financially distressed company from turning their situation around.

The High Court’s recent decision in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28 has confirmed a bankruptcy court can exercise a discretion to go behind the judgment debt where sufficient reason is shown for questioning whether there is a debt due to the petitioning creditor.

The reforms introducing a safe harbour for directors of insolvent companies and, from 1 July 2018, a limited stay on the operation of ipso facto clauses have been passed by both Houses of the Australian Parliament and will likely be enacted by month end. Late on Monday evening, after some debate, the Senate passed the reforms with only minor amendments. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 then returned to the House of Representatives who formally passed the amended Bill last night.

Safe harbour

In the recent decision of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953, Cooper Grace Ward acted for the trustee in bankruptcy, who sought directions from the Court regarding the administration of a trading trust where the bankrupt was the trustee.

Facts

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee has strongly recommended that the Australian Parliament pass the reforms to Australia's safe harbour and ipso facto regime currently before the Senate. As the reforms have already passed through the House of Representatives, this means that as early as the end of August 2017, in prescribed circumstances, directors could be entitled to a safe harbour from personal liability for insolvent trading claims.

Safe harbour