In Short

The Situation: Historically, creditors pursued by liquidators under the unfair preference regime could rely on a statutory set-off as a defence to the claim, reducing or eliminating their liability to repay what would otherwise be preference payments, on the basis that the liability for the unfair preference payment formed part of a running account between the creditor and the company.

In Short

The Situation: The High Court of Australia has confirmed in Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 that the "peak indebtedness rule" is no longer available to liquidators when assessing the value of running accounts in unfair preference claims.

WHITE PAPER An Update on Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry The construction sector in Australia has long been affected by insolvency and broader liquidity issues. In the last year, construction companies accounted for 26% of businesses that entered into insolvency, and insolvencies in the construction sector more than doubled. This year, contractors have been further squeezed by inflation, supply chain issues and labour market shortages. As the federal government has wound back its COVID-19 economic stimulus packages, further collapses seem inevitable.

In Short

The Situation: In February 2020, amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) expanded the kinds of transactions that may be voidable if a company is being wound up to include asset disposals undertaken as part of illegal phoenixing schemes. Such disposals are termed as "creditor-defeating dispositions" in the legislation.

In Short

The Situation: In the recent decision of Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered the availability of mutual set-off provisions in s 553C the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) as a defence to unfair preference claims.

In Short

The Situation: The Full Court of the Federal Court has changed industry practice in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64 by holding that the "peak indebtedness rule" is not available to liquidators when assessing the value of running accounts in unfair preference claims. 

In response to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia in 2020, the federal government injected an unprecedented level of stimulus into the Australian economy and introduced temporary law reforms aimed at protecting against an anticipated "tidal wave" of insolvencies. These temporary law reforms included a moratorium on civil liability for insolvent trading for directors and increased thresholds and time frames for responding to statutory demands.

During the better part of 2020, the federal government has injected an unprecedented level of stimulus into the Australian economy in an attempt to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19. As a result, despite a significant contraction in the Australian economy, roughly half as many Australian companies are entering insolvency processes today compared with the same time last year. As that stimulus is wound back, it seems inevitable that the number of insolvencies will rise.

In Short

The Situation: In Australia, the Takeovers Panel ("Panel") is the primary forum for hearing disputes in relation to takeover bids and other corporate control transactions involving public companies. In light of the current COVID-19-led financial distress being experienced by many companies, understanding when the Panel will be the appropriate forum to consider disputes in relation to a company in administration is important. This question arose in the course of the current Virgin Australia Group administration.

In Short

The Situation: When determining and quantifying unfair preference claims in Australia, does the Corporations Act permit liquidators to value transactions forming part of a single "continuous business relationship" (such as a running account) from the point of peak indebtedness, even if doing so disregards earlier transactions that might act to reduce the value of the claim against the creditor?