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.

Another bankruptcy court—this time in New York—has weighed in on the issue of whether “make whole” provisions are enforceable in bankruptcy. See In re MPM Silicones, LLC, et al. (a/k/a Momentive Performance Materials).

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

As the wave of litigation spawned by the 2008 financial crisis begins to ebb, insurance-coverage litigation arising out of the credit crisis continues unabated. Financial institutions have successfully pursued insurance coverage for many credit-crisis claims under directors and officers (D&O) and errors and omissions (E&O) policies that they purchased to protect themselves against wrongful-act claims brought by their customers, but in response, some insurers continue to raise inapplicable exclusions in an attempt to diminish or limit coverage for their policyholders.

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

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the “Court”) issued an opinion limiting the ability of a “loan to own” secured creditor to credit bid at an auction for the sale of substantially all of the debtors’ assets.¹ The Court focused on the fact that the creditor’s conduct interfered with the sale process and was motivated by its desire to “own the Debtors’ business” rather than to have its d

Introduction

Does the ATO have priority over secured creditors in a liquidation? Is a receiver required to account to the ATO for any tax payable out of funds received on the sale of an asset before accounting to the secured creditor? Are receivers and liquidators personally liable for the tax payable from funds received by them? Can receivers and liquidators avoid such personal liability by distributing funds received to creditors before a tax assessment arises? These issues were at the centre of a Federal Court judgment handed down on 21 February 2014.

On January 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered an order in the Fisker Automotive (“Fisker”) chapter 11 bankruptcy cases limiting the ability of Fisker’s secured lender, Hybrid Tech Holdings, LLC (“Hybrid”), to credit bid at an auction for the sale of substantially all of Fisker’s assets.¹ Hybrid immediately sought an appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s