For some time, controversy has surrounded the question as to whether unsecured creditors of an insolvent company can utilise set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) against unfair preference claims.
These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.
This summary covers:
We are (or were!) emerging from nearly two years of restrictions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic which forced people to stay at home and businesses to close causing shock waves throughout the economy. The government put in place the package of emergency measures and support which we are now all too familiar with. However, the question always lingered, what next? What about when the money runs out?
Public examinations are a powerful process for a liquidator to explore the reasons for a company’s failure, identify any claims the liquidator or the company might have and assess recoverability prospects following any successful claim.
In a similar vein, liquidators might also obtain document production orders against natural persons and corporate entities. Such document production orders are often obtained in advance of examinations, and can assist the liquidator in its investigations and preparation for the examinations.
This appeal concerned (inter alia) whether an application for an order for sale made under s.335A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (‘IA 1986’) should be made by an application notice issued under the Insolvency Rules 2016 (‘IR 2016) or by a Part 8 Claim Form issued under the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’).
Factual Background
Introduction
In Re Bronia, ICC Judge Burton had to consider whether a director could retrospectively re-characterise a director’s loan as ‘drawings’ in order to release the director from liability to the company. ICC Judge Burton concluded that such an approach was impermissible.
Facts
The court’s power to overturn the decisions of insolvency practitioners in a company’s external administration was highlighted in the recent case of Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (Proof of Debt) [2021] FCA 1061 (Tuscan).
These case summaries first appeared in LexisNexis’ Insolvency Case Alerter. They represent some of the more interesting insolvency decisions to have been published recently.
This summary covers:
In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.
Voluntary administration is Australia’s primary business rescue regime. This article is Part 2 of a two-part series. In this article, we highlight the impact of voluntary administration on various stakeholders and the potential outcomes for a company in voluntary administration. It is not intended to be used as an exhaustive guide to Australia’s voluntary administration regime and its many nuances.