Judgment was handed down last week on the substantial directors' duties and wrongful trading claims brought against former directors of various BHS companies^[1].

For most businesses, a decision to undertake an organisational change can mean a reduction in operational costs, a reduction in roles, an increase in efficiencies and streamlined decision-making. However, the announcement of a restructure can often leave staff of all levels feeling tense and uncertain. Effectively navigating organisational change is not something that happens by chance, it requires a clear plan, effective communication and a recognition of risks.

This article will help employers plan for organisational change, identify risks and manage communication.

In a proceeding brought by Mr Curran, in his capacity as the trustee for June Ellen Investment Trust (Plaintiff), to wind up Fitzgerald Housing Limited (formerly known as Kay Fitzgerald Housing Charity Limited) (Defendant), the New South Wales Supreme Court considered whether it was necessary to adjourn the winding up proceeding to allow the Defendant to advance a small business restructuring process (Restructuring).

Bankruptcy litigation can stem well beyond the primary bankruptcy proceedings. Continued litigation may be born out of disputes between bankrupts, bankruptcy trustees and other interested parties in respect of methods of asset liquidation.

Fraudulent trading is both a civil and criminal offence. The recent judgment of the High Court in Bouchier v Booth provided a helpful reminder of the principles that a Court will apply when considering whether directors have acted in a manner that constitutes fraudulent trading and the high threshold for proving fraudulent conduct.

The Court of Appeal has ruled that the previous decision of the High Court to sanction a restructuring plan ("Plan") that had been proposed by the Adler Group ("Adler") should be set aside. The decision marks the first appeal in relation to a restructuring plan under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 ("Companies Act") and the decision offers clarity on the approach to restructuring plans, particularly when considering issues of "fairness".

The Supreme Court has provided welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners in confirming that administrators of a company appointed pursuant to the Insolvency Act 1986 ("IA 1986") will not be criminally liable for a failure by the company to comply with redundancy notification requirements.

Yes is the answer! On 12 July 2023, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services published its report regarding corporate insolvency in Australia.

Objective of the inquiry

The committee’s inquiry assessed how effective the current corporate insolvency regime is at providing benefits to, and protecting, stakeholders as well as the Australian economy. It looked at a number of aspects including:

By an Amended Special Case, Derrington J reserved for consideration by the Full Court of the Federal Court the following question: “Is statutory set-off, under s 553C(1) of the Act, available to the [appellant] in this proceeding against the [first respondent’s] claim as liquidator for the recovery of an unfair preference under s 588FA of the Act?” By majority, the Court of Appeal (Kiefel CJ, Gordon, Edelman and Stewart JJ) held that s 553C(1) of the Act does not entitle the creditor to such a set-off.

Background

In Reel Action Sports Fishing Pty Ltd v Marine Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd, [1] the Court offered a timely warning to liquidators of the dangers of adopting and acting on an incorrect understanding of the ownership of contested property. The Court ordered damages against the liquidator personally, despite his position as agent for the company in liquidation.

Background