The peak indebtedness rule employed by liquidators to maximise recovery of unfair preference claims is abolished

A recent case in the NSW Court of Appeal clarifies the purpose, and limits, of a public examination summons

The PAS Group decision reaffirms the principle that rent incurred during the administration period takes priority in the winding-up payment waterfall

Antqip Hire highlights the importance of drafting a DOCA carefully, and properly communicating to creditors the commercial risks

The case of Antqip Hire was brought by the liquidators of two related entities (Antqip Pty Limited and Antqip Hire Pty Limited).

Orders were sought determining:

A voluntary administrator is often appointed by the company. The directors have a role in selecting the administrator; often the referral will come through one of the company’s advisers, such as the accountant or lawyer.

National Rugby League (NRL) was successful in setting aside a summons for public examination obtained by the liquidator of Newheadspace Pty Limited (Newheadspace). The Court also awarded NRL its costs. The Court found that the creditors’ voluntary winding-up of Newheadspace was an abuse of process, and that the summonses were obtained for an improper purpose.

 The Court of Appeal has held that a transfer on an administration cannot be caught by TUPE rules, unlike on insolvency proceedings. As such administrations will not be “insolvency proceedings” for the purposes of the exemption to TUPE.

What does this mean?

Businesses who purchase companies who have been placed into administration will take on the liability under TUPE for the company’s employees. Employees will transfer under TUPE and  will be protected from transfer- connected dismissals.

What should employers do?

In what circumstances might an individual administrator be liable for discrimination against employees of companies in administration? This was the question the Employment Tribunal asked itself in the case of Spencer v Lehman Brothers (in administration) and others.

Since the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 were made in order to implement the European Union’s Council Directive 80/987/EEC, there has been an ongoing debate on how regulation 8 (7) (the bankruptcy proceedings exception) should be interpreted. Fortunately, a recent decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal has gone some way towards clarifying the issue.