Changes to the Australian Insolvency regime continue to progress through the legislature as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017. The amendments are intended to allow companies and directors protections whilst they informally restructure, rather than requiring potentially premature entry into formal insolvency proceedings. It is hoped this will increase the turn-around prospects of those companies.

It is not uncommon for administrators to be appointed in the period between a company being served with a creditor’s winding up application and the date on which that application is to be heard. Despite their appointment, and unless the administrator attempts to intervene, the Court can and often will hear the winding up application and, if appropriate, order that the company be wound up and terminate the administration.

This case involved an application for security for costs against Mr Nogotkov who is, or claims to be, the Liquidator appointed by a Russian court of Dalnyaya Step LLC ("DSL").

A case of two companies, one incorporated in Dubai and the other in England, involved in a network of businesses producing contrived fancy colour diamond valuations were eventually wound up by English courts in the interest of the public.

The Part 5.3A administration regime was introduced to facilitate orderly and timely outcomes for creditors. This is clearly evidenced by the relatively short time frame stipulated by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) between when the first and second creditors’ meetings are to be held.

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 recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Mighty River International Ltd v Hughes & Bredenkamp [2017] WASC 69 (Mighty River v Hughes) has confirmed the legality and the utility of ‘holding’ deeds of company arrangement (colloquially referred to as ‘Holding DOCAs’).

Hold what?

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.

Marex Financial Limited v. Carlos Sevilleja Garcia [2017] EWHC 918 (Comm)

This recent decision on a jurisdictional challenge has provided greater clarity and potentially created a tortious cause of action where a debtor dissipates assets prior to judgment and subsequent freezing order.

Background

On 2 March Cambridgeshire-based merchant WellGrain went into administration, reportedly owing at least £15m to almost 300 creditors, many of those being farmers.

The administrators' report has now been published and indicates that the unsecured creditors - including some 155 farmers - will expect to receive between 1.4 - 6.7 pence for every pound they are owed.

It is an announcement which will no doubt be met with dismay by those creditors. However, it is not unusual that unsecured creditors of an insolvent company will receive little or no payment.