In certain circumstances, liquidators may be at risk of personal exposure to costs orders in litigation.
The court’s approach to the making of costs orders against liquidators depends on (amongst other things) whether the liquidator is a named party to the proceedings, whether the liquidator is commencing or defending proceedings, and whether the liquidator has acted ‘improperly’ or unreasonably in the commencement, maintenance or defence of the action.
Proceedings commenced by the liquidator / company in liquidation
On 19 October 2017, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by the Commonwealth Government in order to reduce the default period of bankruptcy from three years down to just one year. The stated objective of the Bill is “to foster entrepreneurial behaviour and reduce the stigma associated with bankruptcy whilst maintaining the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement frameworks for the personal insolvency regime.”
On 25 October 2017, the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AIB) published its insolvency statistics for the latest quarter, July to September 2017.
The recent case of Breyer Group plc v RBK Engineering Limited considered the use of winding up petitions in construction contracts.
An application was made by Breyer to stop RBK from continuing with a petition to wind up the company. The court decided that winding up petitions can operate as a form of commercial oppression and may not be appropriate, especially when adjudication or ordinary proceedings would be a more appropriate forum for the dispute.
The background
We are now past the second tranche of changes under the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth), comprised most importantly of Part 3 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) (containing the General Rules relating to external administrations) which came into effect on 1 September 2017.
Part 3 of the IPS will apply to external administrations that start on or after 1 September 2017.
- On 18 September 2017 the Treasury Law Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 (the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act) became law.
- The Safe Harbour reforms introduced in the Safe Harbour and Ipso Facto Act create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency processes.
Division 65 and the New Strict Liability Regime
As part of the significant reforms to insolvency and bankruptcy laws introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (ILRA), parliament has sought to condense and simplify the requirement for external administrators to avoid conflicts of interest.
After ten years of operation the European Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000) has been extensively reviewed by the European Commission, European Parliament and Council. On 20 May 2015, the European Parliament approved the result of that review: the recast Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 2015/848) (the “Regulation”), which applies to insolvency proceedings commencing from 26 June 2017.
Whether you are a liquidator, director, employee, shareholder or creditor of a company in financial distress, the experience of a corporate insolvency is usually not pleasant. Directors face the threat of being investigated for breaches of directors duties, employees become unemployed, shareholders become the owners of worthless assets and creditors are forced to come to the realisation that they will never see the money owed to them (or at least not all of it).