The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security.

The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security. Those risks include:

In the recent case of Re Joint and Several Liquidators of Ozner Water International Holding Ltd 浩澤淨水國際控股有限公司 (In Liquidation) [2022] HKCU 940, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (Hong Kong Court) granted an application by the liquidators (Liquidators) of Ozner Water International Holding Ltd. (Company) for a letter of request for recognition and assistance (Letter of Request) to be issued to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (Shenzhen Court).

In the landmark decision in case (2021)粤03认港破1号(2021) Yue 03 Ren Gang Po No. 1 (Shenzhen Court Decision), the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (Shenzhen Court) ordered formal recognition in Mainland China of liquidators appointed by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (Hong Kong Court) over Samson Paper Company Limited (Company) to permit the liquidators to exercise powers over the Company’s assets located in Mainland China.

Morton as Liquidator of MJ Woodman Electrical Contractors Pty Ltd v Metal Manufacturers Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 228.

In a resounding judgment delivered last week, the Full Federal Court has confirmed that a statutory set-off under section 533C is not available to a defendant in unfair preference proceedings.

Key Takeaways

The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294

The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 casts significant doubt on liquidators’ capacity to rely upon section 568 of the Corporations Act to disclaim environmental liabilities, despite the absence of any involvement of the liquidator in the creation of those liabilities.

In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.

A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.

Introduction

In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).

Key takeaways

On December 24, 2020, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) unveiled a Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) establishing the broad relationship between them after the end of the Brexit transition period on December 31, 2020, with a particular focus on international trade, investment, public policy, and economic partnership between EU Member States and the UK.