Cash flow and current and future liquidity are now real concerns for many businesses during this COVID-19 pandemic. Increasingly, the attention of directors and the wider economic ecosystem is turning to consider the issues of approaching insolvency and the duties of directors.

In line with the current approach of the UK Government to support businesses, on Saturday, 28 March, the Business Secretary, Alok Sharma, announced that UK wrongful trading insolvency laws are to temporarily change to help give businesses and directors some "breathing space".

Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49

The High Court has recently considered the question of whether, and in what circumstances, property held by a bankrupt on trust for a third party vests in the trustee in bankruptcy pursuant to s 58 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth): Boensch v Pascoe [2019] HCA 49. The decision was handed down late last year, providing further guidance for trustees following Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (2019) 93 ALJR 807.

Facts

Mr Lock and Mr Sheahan (the liquidators) performed their roles as administrators, and then as liquidators, of three companies.

The liquidators carried out numerous tasks across four work streams: (1) investigating the identities of a creditor and shareholders of one of the companies; (2) potential claims against the companies’ directors and a bank; (3) issues arising under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth); and (4) applications relating to receivers that had been appointed.

In an 8-1decision issued on May 20, the Supreme Court held that rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in a bankruptcy of the licensor is merely a breach, and not a termination or rescission, of the agreement. The licensee retains whatever rights it would have had upon a breach of the agreement prior to bankruptcy and can continue to use the trademarks pursuant to its contractual rights under applicable law. Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ___, No. 17-1657 (May 20, 2019).

Background

King (Trustee); In the matter of Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v Linkage Access Limited [2018] FCA 1979 is the latest in a series of decisions, across multiple proceedings, dealing with the dogged attempts of a United States bankruptcy trustee to recover a luxury yacht moored in Australian waters.

What Is the "Rule in Gibbs"?

The rule in Gibbs is a long-established common law principle in which the Court of Appeal determined that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged or compromised by a foreign insolvency proceeding(Anthony Gibbs and Sons v La Société Industrielle et Commerciale des Métaux (1890) 25 QBD 399). The rule in Gibbs remains a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law.

Why Does the Rule in Gibbs Matter?

In a brief but significant opinion, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware reversed a decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and allowed more than $30 million in unsecured, post-petition fees incurred by an indenture trustee ("Indenture Trustee").1 In reversing, the District Court relied upon a uniform body of Court of Appeals opinions issued on the subject.

Introduction

In Botsman v Bolitho [2018] VSCA 278, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed an appeal from the decision of Croft J to approve the settlement of two related proceedings arising from the failed merger of Banksia Securities Limited (Banksia) and Statewide Secured Investments Limited (Statewide).

In this proceeding, the Full Court of the Federal Court considered three main issues:

• whether certain on-lending arrangements gave rise to legitimate tax deductions for interest;
• duties and liabilities of directors who were not directly involved in the impugned transactions; and
• costs payable by a representative where claims were brought against the estate of a deceased director and the representative of that estate, in his own right.

Facts

Two companies which contended they were ‘unquestionably solvent’ were unsuccessful in an application to injunct a party from instituting proceedings to wind them up. This decision clarifies the extent to which the case law on abuse of process made prior to the enactment of Part 5.4 of the Corporations Act continues to apply.

Facts