In the lead up to peak periods, many businesses come under financial pressure due to various internal and external factors. Seasonal sales may not have been as planned and provision needs to be made for employee holiday pay.

On 7 November 2014 the Government released the Insolvency Law Reform Bill.

The Bill comprises of a package of proposals aimed at amending and streamlining the Bankruptcy Act 1966 and the Corporations Act 2001. It also contains proposals to reform how liquidators are registered and regulated.

Requirements to become a liquidator

Of particular interest to practitioners are the changes to the way new liquidators will become registered.

In Quadrant Structured Products Co. v. Vertin, C.A. No. 6990-VCL, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 193 (Del. Ch. Oct. 1, 2014), the Delaware Court of Chancery held that when creditors of insolvent firms assert derivative claims, they need not meet the contemporaneous ownership requirement applied to stockholder-plaintiffs.

Introduction

Achieving sales growth is a significant challenge for many Australian businesses. Even if new customers can be found, an inability to collect and hold onto payments can pose another obstacle to growth.

To survive and prosper businesses must plan, and implement, strategies for sustained profitability. It is not enough to simply achieve fantastic sales results and get the money in, businesses must also anticipate, and protect against, the risk that payments received from customers may be clawed back if a liquidator is later appointed to the customer.

The recent decision of the Federal Court in the matter of Divitkos, in the matter of ExDVD Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2014] FCA 696 confirms that where a receiver is required to make a payment under Section 433 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) to a priority creditor (such as employee entitlements), the secured creditor (who appointed the receiver) may be entitled to be subrogated to the rights of that priority creditor in the winding up of the company.

The Law

A bankruptcy court in Pennsylvania recently held that trade creditors who supplied goods to a debtor prior to its bankruptcy filing were not entitled to administrative priority status under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) because the goods were “received by the debtor” at the time they were placed on the vessel at the port overseas more than 20 days before the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, although the debtor took possession of the goods within the 20 day period.  In re World Imports, Ltd. — B.R. —-, 2014 WL 2750258 (Bankr. E.D. Pa., June 18, 2014).

A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)

Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15

The High Court this week reinforced the significance and standing of a Liquidator's equitable lien for his or her costs and expenses incurred in realising assets of a company in liquidation, as first clearly espoused by Justice Dixon in the 1933 case of Universal Distributing. Gadens acted for the successful Liquidator/Appellant in the unanimous judgment of the five High Court Justices.

The Principle

Successor liability is often a concern for the acquirer when purchasing substantially all of a seller’s assets.  While this risk is well known, the circumstances under which an acquirer will be found liable under the theory of successor liability are less clear.  The recent decision in Call Center Techs., Inc. v Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Pub. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29057, 2014 WL 85934 (D. Conn. 2014), sheds helpful light on this issue by defining the continuity of enterprise theory of successor liability.