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:

The recent English judgment of System Building Services Group Limited¹ is an important decision for directors of offshore companies in 'soft touch' provisional liquidation, and highlights the importance of conducting a thorough analysis of the order appointing provisional liquidators for the purposes of ascertaining the scope of directors’ duties that apply during the course of their post-appointment restructuring efforts.

Alexandra Vinogradova v (1) Elena Vinogradova, (2) Sergey Vinogradov (BVIHCMAP 2018/052)

With the States of Guernsey's approval yesterday of the Companies (Guernsey) Law, 2008 (Insolvency) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (the "Ordinance"), Guernsey took a step towards further enhancing its reputation as a robust jurisdiction for restructuring and insolvency.

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.

How should the liquidator of an insolvent trustee company ensure payment out of trust assets of the entirety of his or her remuneration and expenses?

If a company becomes insolvent or experiences a liquidity crunch, which necessitates a restructuring or resort to higher-risk financing arrangements, the directors should consider whether to commence formal proceedings to facilitate the restructuring or financing.

In its much anticipated decision, the High Court has unanimously dismissed the Amerind appeal.[1] This decision finally resolves recent uncertainty as to the proper application of trust assets in the liquidation of an insolvent corporate trustee.

In short, the High Court’s decision confirms that in the winding up of a corporate trustee: