On Monday 8 November, the High Court imposed one of the longest ever disqualification periods for a company director. The Court held that this was "one of the most extreme cases of using a company for [oil] laundering", and granted an application on behalf of the liquidator of Gaboto Limited for the disqualification of the two directors for a period of fifteen years.

In a substantial recent decision arising from the Arrium liquidation[1], the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the materiality of significant future liabilities in assessing the company’s solvency.

A hotly anticipated decision in the ongoing saga of the Babcock & Brown liquidation was handed down last week, resulting in another win for the liquidator (represented by Johnson Winter & Slattery) and further highlighting the challenges facing liquidators when they are thrust into a quasi-judicial function when assessing proofs of debt.

Introduction

While examinership is a successful and internationally recognised rescue process for Irish companies, there has been a concern for some time that is out of reach of smaller businesses due to the associated costs. As part of the government’s response to the economic challenges of the pandemic, the Department of Enterprise has published a rescue process for small and micro businesses.

In the wake of the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving [2020] VSCA 198 (‘Cant’), the Supreme Court of New South Wales’ recent decision in Re Western Port Holdings provides further encouragement for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims with respect to third party payments and payments made during the operation of a deed of company arrangement (DOCA).

Key takeaways

The High Court has recently brought welcome clarity to how pensions are dealt with in the event of a bankruptcy, in the case of Lehane –v- Wealth Options and Brian O'Neill.

While the recent Brexit trade deal contains various provisions for the conduct of trade in the post-Brexit era, it does not provide clarification for new cross-border insolvency proceedings involving the United Kingdom.

However, the Withdrawal Agreement which came into force on 1 February 2020 and established the terms of the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, does provide some comfort for insolvency practitioners, but only where insolvency proceedings were opened prior to the end of the Brexit transition period.

With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looming large, the implications for Irish insolvency practitioners is something we will all have to consider. The insolvency landscape will most likely look very different when we all return to the office after Christmas. This is a discussion on some of the possible implications for Irish and UK insolvency practitioners post-Brexit.

Current Regime

The Treasurer has announced major proposed reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework aimed at facilitating the restructuring of small to medium businesses (MSMEs) and streamlining their liquidation if rescue is not achievable (Reforms). The Reforms are intended to come into effect from 1 January 2021, after the suite of current insolvency protections introduced to address the economic impact of COVID-19, expire on 31 December 2020.