Introduction for Insolvency & Restructuring Case Summaries 2021-2022 It gives us great pleasure to introduce our Insolvency & Restructuring Case Summaries 2021-2022.

This is the first year that we have published a collated version of the Case Summaries in addition to our regular insolvency InFocus updates. The Case Summaries have been produced in response to feedback that this would be a useful resource.

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.

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

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has helpfully given guidance to the liquidators of the RCR Tomlinson Group on a number of unsettled questions that have challenged insolvency practitioners (particularly liquidators of construction companies) when assessing whether certain intangible rights and assets are circulating assets.

The questions include:

On 1 June 2017 a new law came into effect in New South Wales relevant to liquidators’ rights to directly pursue the insurer of a proposed defendant, taking away significant uncertainty which existed previously because of antiquated provisions in a 1946 act relating to charges over and priorities to those insurance monies.

The new law now provides greater certainty for liquidators in deciding whether to bring proceedings directly against the insurers of directors and officers or indeed of other third parties against whom the liquidators may have claims.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently considered section 420A of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Act) in the context of a Receiver selling secured property without first advertising and offering the property for sale by auction.

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found that a secured party cannot rely on its own mistake when registering on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) to claim that the defective registration “temporarily perfects” its security interest.

The facts

In the matter of One.Tel Limited (in liquidation) [2014] NSWSC 1892