In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:
Insolvency in the construction industry is not just isolated to contractors, sub-contractors and consultants. Industry and economic pressures can affect all parties, including at times employers, therefore it is equally important for contractors to carry out due diligence when bidding for projects and to consider contractual mechanisms that can be put in place to protect against non-payment by the employer and insolvency risks.
Wrongful trading rules, which can result in directors being personally liable for losses incurred as a result of continued trading, are being temporarily suspended in recognition of the large number of businesses being impacted by COVID-19. While this news will be welcomed by businesses across the UK, directors should not be complacent about their responsibilities.
For many years an insolvent company’s creditors have had their cake and eaten it where a gratuitous alienation for inadequate consideration has been successfully challenged.
Back in the late 1990’s the ubiquitous Katie Price t/a Jordan was at the height of her fame, gracing the pages of our tabloids, gentlemen’s publications such as Loaded and FHM and perhaps the odd bedroom wall of a rather poor Law student. It was reported at the time she had a net worth of around £45million.
In December 2018 with her finances now somewhat diminished, Katie entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (“IVA”) with her creditors. In November this year she was made bankrupt for failing to comply with the same.
In Carrello,[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.
This update explains the key changes in cross-border insolvency proceedings if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 31 October 2019 (or at a later date). Importantly, a no-deal exit will impact how and where such insolvency proceedings can be raised in a post-Brexit future.
A bit of background
While the UK is still an EU Member State, EU Regulations provide a clear framework for conducting cross-border insolvency proceedings. The EU Insolvency Regulations (the 2000 Insolvency Regulation and the 2015 Recast Insolvency Regulation) include provisions which:
The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.
In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.