In a recent decision in the Supreme Court of NSW[1], Rees J set aside a liquidator’s bid to publicly examine two senior officers of the National Rugby League (NRL), finding that examination summonses issued by the liquidator were an abuse of process and the entire liquidation process was a contrivance in order to exert commercial pressure on the NRL.
The Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020 (Coronavirus Response Bill) was passed on 23 March 2020 and received Royal Assent on 24 March 2020 following the Federal Government’s announcements made between 12 and 22 March 2020 of its economic response to the spread of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Coronavirus Response Bill provides, amongst other legislative amendments, for temporary changes of 6 months’ duration to Australian insolvency and corporations laws to assist in managing the sudden economic shock resulting from COVID-19.
In its recent decision in the ongoing Solar Shop litigation,[1] the Full Federal Court established two key principles which will have significant ongoing implications for the conduct of unfair preference claims:
Representatives of a lender on a board will not automatically impose directors' duties on the lender, but they may apply where a director's specific instructions have led directly to a breach of fiduciary duty. The High Court recently explored this issue in an appeal in the case of Standish v Royal Bank of Scotland plc.(1)
Facts
In this chapter of our Annual Insurance Review 2020, we look at the main developments in 2019 and expected issues in 2020 for restructuring and insolvency.
Key developments in 2019
In one of the leading insurance insolvency and restructuring cases of 2019, Ballantyne Re, plc (Ballantyne) used an Irish scheme of arrangement to restructure its reinsurance obligations and outstanding indebtedness (the Scheme).
The high street is experiencing a rash of administrations, but could regulators fix the mess?
In The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway neatly summed up how bankruptcy happens. It occurs two ways: “Gradually. Then suddenly.” The British retail landscape has seen a flurry of such calamities. Thomas Cook, House of Fraser, L.K.Bennett, Debenhams, Links of London, Goals Soccer Centres, Mothercare and Jack Wills all struggled for periods before collapsing into various forms of administration.
In Carrello,[1] the Federal Court granted a warrant under section 530C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) allowing the liquidator of Drilling Australia Pty Ltd (the Company) to search and seize property, books and records located in storage containers belonging to the Company.
The Federal Court has considered whether a deed of company arrangement (DoCA) binds a regulator. The case involved an application by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for leave to proceed against a company in liquidation. The Court rejected the company’s argument that the FWO’s claims were extinguished by the DoCA and granted the FWO leave to pursue the claim. The outcome of the proceedings may impact the types of, and circumstances in which, claims by a regulator will not be extinguished by a DoCA.
In a decision of the Federal Court handed down on 18 October 2019 in Masters v Lombe (Liquidator); In the Matter of Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2019] FCA 1720, Foster J held that Babcock & Brown Limited (BBL) did not breach the continuous disclosure obligations in the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASX Listing Rules.