Liquidators accepting a new appointment will have to think carefully if there's a possibility of disclaiming onerous property as part of that appointment.

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.

The equitable doctrine of marshalling can protect the security interests of subordinate secured creditors when a debtor becomes insolvent.

Marshalling is a neglected tool in the insolvency toolbox, but it can play an important role in protecting the security interests of subordinate secured creditors.

While the High Court has provided some clarity on the operation of the statutory priority regime, insolvency practitioners will still need to tread carefully when dealing with corporate trustees.

For insolvency practitioners who need clarity on how receivers and/or liquidators should pay, out of trust assets, priority employee claims arising from trust liabilities, the High Court's decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] HCA 20 (Amerind) is a welcome result.

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

In the recent decision of Topland Portfolio No.1 Limited v Smiths News Trading Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 18, the Court of Appeal has given a timely reminder of the need for landlords to tread carefully when dealing with leases to ensure that a tenant guarantee remains effective.

In the event of a tenant becoming insolvent, it is clearly important for a landlord to know where rent payable ranks in administration. A recent landmark decision handed down by the High Court strengthens the position of landlords by deciding that rent can now be more widely payable as an expense of the administrator.

Background

Simply, if rent is ranked as an expense of the administration1 then it is almost always discharged in full as a mandatory expense of the administrator, rather than being placed with lower priority creditors.