A professional negligence claim against trustees in bankruptcy alleging that they had unnecessarily prolonged the bankruptcies and caused the bankrupts’ loss failed. The Trustees had agreed not to take steps in the bankruptcies while Dr Oraki and her husband made repeated applications to set aside the judgment upon which their bankruptcy orders were made and annul their bankruptcies under s 282(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986, which they eventually succeeded in doing.

'B’ appealed an Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) s 279(3) order suspending her discharge from bankruptcy until ‘T’ confirmed B had complied with her IA 1986 duties. B traded through a company, which entered voluntary liquidation in November 2014. B’s personal guarantee of company debt led to a bankruptcy order in February 2015. 

This case arose from the ongoing administration of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (‘LBIE’). The appeal considered the proper ranking of certain subordinated debt in the insolvency ‘waterfall’, among other matters.

Held

The first issue concerned the construction of debt instruments subordinated to amounts ‘payable in the insolvency’. It was held that such amounts included statutory interest and non-provable debts, and accordingly those liabilities must be met before any balance could be used to pay off the subordinated loans.

The Defendant (‘D’) was a director of the Claimant, (‘RHIL’) and its subsidiary, (‘BTSC’), which provided training courses. In 2010 D appointed MG as administrator of BTSC and MG arranged a pre-pack sale of the business. The purchaser paid nothing for the business but assumed responsibility for the training, thereby limiting BTSC’s liability for course fee refunds.

The Queensland Supreme Court in the case of Scott & Ors v Port Hinchinbrook Services Limited & Ors [2017] QSC 92 has again confirmed the utility of a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) in respect of director appointments and members’ rights as part of a restructure.

Issues

The Court was asked to consider the following issues:

A recent court decision is a timely reminder of the limitations that can affect a person’s ability to rely on set-off rights when a debtor or contract counterparty becomes insolvent.

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 article was first published in Insolvency Intelligence 2017, 30(5), 85-87.

In an earlier edition of this publication I identified what appeared to be a growing trend for the making of a draconian form of order suspending the discharge of bankruptcies. This form of order is typically associated with the case of Mawer v Bland where Mrs Justice Rose upheld on appeal the following order made by Chief Registrar Baister:

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.