Section 447A
JOEL COOK Associate, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, McCabes
ANDREW LACEY Principal, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, McCabes
legal update
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL
Varying the scope of the Part 5.3A moratorium on proceedings against companies in voluntary administration.
The Court of Appeal has resolved previously conflicting case law to confirm that a bankrupt cannot be obliged to crystallise his pension benefits in order to produce income to pay off creditors.
Background
Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) commonly adopt time-based costing for the calculation of their remuneration, primarily on the basis that it ensures that the IP is only remunerated for the work actually undertaken and it ensures that remuneration reflects the simplicity or complexity of particular tasks. Three other ways in which remuneration are common calculated are ‘fixed fee’, ‘percentage’ (such as in respect of recoveries/realisations) and ‘contingency’ bases.
The bar for recovering assets that have been dubiously transferred out of an insolvent company may not be as high as one might think.
Background
On 14 June 2016, in its judgment delivered in Great Investments Ltd v Warner [2016] FCAFC 85, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that a benefit transferred from a company without authority can only be retained by the recipient in very limited circumstances.
Introduction
On 17 June 2016, the First-tier Tribunal (in Farnborough Airport Properties Ltd v HMRC2) held that the appointment of a receiver over a (would-be surrendering) group company meant that “arrangements” were in place for the company to no longer be under the same “control” as would-be claimant group companies.
From 1 April 2016, conditional fee agreements (CFA), after the event premiums and success fees will no longer be recoverable in insolvency cases.
The legislative change is set to have the biggest impact on lower-value insolvency cases (damages less than £500,000 and legal costs lower than £200,000).
The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.
Section 440D imposes a stay on “proceedings in a court” against a company whilst it is in administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act. It is well established that the term “proceedings in a court” does not include an arbitration proceeding: see Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 1305 at [42] (Hammerschlag J). Notwithstanding this, can the Court use its general power to make orders under s447A to extend the reach of s440D in order to impose a stay on an arbitration against a company in administration?