Liquidators need to be mindful that a disclaimer of property may be challenged. The Supreme Court of Victoria underscored a key issue in establishing "prejudice" to creditors in a liquidation, holding that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified.

Residential aged care has recently been in the news for all the wrong reasons, with headlines due to the particularly heavy impact of COVID-19 on this sector, the interim findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety and the alarming declaration by Leading Age Services Australia that a pre-COVID-19 accounting review indicating that almost 200 nursing homes housing some 50,000 people were operating at an unacceptably high risk of insolvency – a finding supported by the recently released report by the Aged Care Financing Authority (ACFA) which found “near

Australia has now entered its first recession in 29 years, and the Australian Government has implemented a number of legislative reforms and other initiatives to support and provide temporary relief to businesses, including stimulus payments, enhanced asset write-off and flexibility in the application of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The "true employer" question is one which frequently arises in insolvencies of corporate groups, and it also arises in solvent workplace dispute scenarios. Answering it, however, is often hampered by inconsistent or incomplete records and very divergent returns for employees, depending on the outcome of the question.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lock downs have led to a global economic slowdown, and Australia has been no exception. GDP fell by 0.3% in the March quarter, and on 3 June 2020 Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that Australia was officially in its first recession in 29 years.

While the Australian Government was quick to provide a range of economic support measures – having already spent $289bn or 14.6% of GDP in an attempt to keep the economy afloat – Treasury expects Australia's GDP will decline by 0.5% in 2019-20 and a further 2.5% in 2020-21.

The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.

That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?

Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.

On August 11, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an Opinion in Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) v. Bank of America, N.A., et. al, No. 18-1079,[1] an adversary proceeding brought in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.

This decision puts to rest some of the uncertainty which arose due to the NZCA's approach in Timberworld and helps to solidify liquidators' prospects of recovering maximum preferential payments. 

Preferential payments can be an important source of funding for liquidators – and the recent decision in Bryant in the matter of Gunns Limited v Bluewood Industries Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 714 is a source of some relief for liquidators.

Timberworld – uncertainty over the impact on Australian liquidators

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.