Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

In January 2015, the Government published legislation which proposes to increase the level of debt necessary for a creditor to present a bankruptcy petition to £5,000 from 1 October 2015 (Draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) Order 2015). This represents a significant increase on the current law which allows a petition to be presented on a debt of just £750. It has apparently been proposed to dissuade creditors from using this arguably aggressive mechanism to collect relatively low level debts.

Debt Relief Orders

Key Points:

Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.

Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.

Insolvent subcontractor’s claim

Key Points:

There are three things prudent insolvency practitioners can do when left with non-company assets.

A not too infrequent issue for insolvency practitioners: what can you do with unclaimed assets of third parties? Clayton Utz recently acted for the receivers and managers of Arcabi Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (known as “The Rare Coin Company”) and developed a strategy to deal with the issue.

Background

Key Points:

Courts will limit an administrator's liability where proposed funding is to be used directly to advance an agenda consistent with the objects of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act.

A recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court highlights the flexibility of Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act and the ability of administrators to seek orders protecting their interests and facilitating restructures, and was the first stage of what promises to be a novel and challenging administration (In the matter of Nexus Energy Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1041).

Key Points:

This case presented a difficult and unique set of circumstances for the court to navigate while the scheme clock was ticking.

The recent approval of the David Jones scheme of arrangement demonstrates how, in the absence of shareholder opposition, the inexorability of a scheme timetable can cause problems for a court when there is a major development after the first court hearing.

Key Points:

Courts will remove liquidators where there's apparent bias even where it might cause significant inconvenience and expense to the liquidation.

The Full Court of the Federal Court has found that a conflict of interest arose in circumstances where liquidators were required to investigate transactions with an entity that also refers work to the liquidators (ASIC v Franklin; Re Walton Construction Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 85).

Key Points:

A forbearance arrangement is a useful instrument to ensure that both the lender and the customer are aligned on the proposed turnaround or workout.

Key Points:

A Senate Committee has said amendments to Australia's corporate insolvency laws should be considered to encourage and facilitate corporate turnarounds.

The Senate Economics References Committee called for a review of Australia's corporate insolvency laws to ensure they facilitate corporate turnarounds. One suggestion was for the implementation of certain features of the US' Chapter 11 regime into Australia's insolvency laws.

The arguments for changing the insolvency regime

Key Points:

Provided a liquidator is acting properly in conducting proceedings or realising assets, he or she is entitled to be paid fees in priority to a secured creditor.

The High Court has recently reaffirmed the principle that a liquidator is entitled to be paid his or her costs and expenses properly incurred in realising assets of a company in priority to a secured creditor. This is so even if the fund realised was derived from an action brought against a secured creditor (Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15).