In Clifton (Liquidator) v Kerry J Investment Pty Ltd trading as Clenergy [2020] FCAFC 5, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that:

Background

Under the Scheme, furloughed employees, whose services cannot be used due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, will not be permitted to work for their employer during the period of furlough but the employer will be able to apply for a grant from the government to cover the cost of continuing to pay the employees 80% of their salary up to a cap of £2,500 per month.

Companies are now faced with unprecedented challenges presented by the coronavirus pandemic. In this context, company directors will be trying to do everything they can to protect and preserve the business. However, they do still need to remember their legal duties, so as not to expose themselves to the risk of personal liability if their actions go beyond what the law allows.

Practical steps which directors should be taking now, as explained in more detail below include:

Many readers will be aware of the recent, sudden closure during service of Mayfair restaurant “The Square”, which left staff out of work and out of pocket after January’s wages remained unpaid.

Sadly this is by no means an isolated example, as every year thousands of bars and restaurants ‘go under’, but there are steps you can take to protect your position as an employee.

Keep Informed

Not all employers keep their staff updated on the financial health of the company, particularly when its struggling.

In its recent decision in LBI EHF v Raiffeisen Bank International AG [2018] EWCA Civ 719, the Court of Appeal confirmed the wide discretion enjoyed by a non-defaulting party under the default valuation provisions in the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (2000 edition) (“GMRA”) when it comes to determining the “fair market value” of securities.

In particular, when assessing “fair market value”, the non-defaulting party is entitled to have regard to any distressed or illiquid market conditions that were being experienced at the relevant time.

The High Court has held that a bank owed a duty of care to its customer when on notice that an agent acting for the customer was misusing his authority. In the case of Singularis Holdings Limited (in Official Liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch), a bank was liable in negligence to its customer since it was on notice that its customer was at risk of being defrauded by its director but failed to stop payments made for the purpose of misappropriating funds of the company.

The Facts

Two recent decisions have determined the applicability of security for payment legislation to insolvent contractors. One decided that the legislation does not apply to contractors in liquidation. The other decided that the legislation can be used by bankrupt contractors. At first glance, the decisions seem to be at odds, but on closer analysis the two decisions are not inconsistent.

You may recognise the quote in the title from the film "Ron Burgundy – Anchorman" about our favourite newsreader from San Diego in the 80's. Of course he was talking about a street fight with news teams from other San Diego stations but could just as easily been talking about the seemingly sudden financial demise of the Hanjin shipping line.

A problem often faced by creditors is how to recover unsecured judgment debts. If a debtor owns real property, there is a mechanism available through the Courts to have the debt registered against the property and the sheriff's office sell the property to satisfy the judgment debt.

On 1 June 2016 the Victorian Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Timbercorp) v Collins (Collins) and Tomes (Tomes) [2016] VSCA 128, the latest in a string of Timbercorp cases.

The latest decision was preceded by a class action which went all the way to the High Court in which the investors lost their claim against Timbercorp for misleading representations.