The Commonwealth Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Corporate insolvency in Australia was released on 12 July 2023.
The Report states that the construction industry is experiencing one of the highest rates of insolvencies compared to other sectors. The Report cited ASIC data which shows that the number of companies entering external administration has increased relative to the same month in the previous two financial years, with the construction industry being the most highly represented.
Liquidators accepting a new appointment will have to think carefully if there's a possibility of disclaiming onerous property as part of that appointment.
In Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) v Richard Crookes Constructing Pty Ltd v Richard Crookes Construction Pty Ltd; In the matter of Kennedy Civil Contracting Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 99, the NSW Supreme Court considered whether a company on the brink of liquidation can take action to enforce a payment claim under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW) (SOP Act).
Where it appears that there has been concealment or removal of valuable assets and little to no co-operation from the directors in the course of a liquidation, the section 530C warrant procedure in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) has proven to be an effective means of obtaining information regarding company books and assets.
The abolition of the "peak indebtedness" rule will complicate liquidators' tasks, not least its adverse effect on pursuing preferences where it's unclear what forms the single transaction.
The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.
That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?
Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.
In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).
Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.