A recent decision of the High Court has ended an insurer’s fight to avoid being joined to insolvent trading proceedings. This decision confirms the ability of liquidators to directly pursue proceeds of insurance policies held by insolvent insured defendant directors and has important ramifications for insolvency practitioners as well as insurers and litigation funders.

Summary

In the matter of Fat 4 Pty Limited (In Liquidation)

A recent case in the Supreme Court of Victoria has provided some relief for liquidators seeking to add a defendant to a voidable transaction claim after the expiry of the limitation period in circumstances where the wrong defendant was sued by mistake. In such circumstances, liquidators can substitute the incorrect party for the desired defendant without being time barred by s 588FF(3) of the Corporations Act, irrespective of whether the liquidator’s mistake as to the correct party was reasonable.

There have been a number of recent instances, including this year, of quoted companies calling general meetings to seek shareholder approval to remedy dividends that were paid unlawfully. Invariably these have been for non-compliance with a statutory formality rather than because the company did not have sufficient distributable profits to make the dividend.

Why are companies prepared to suffer the embarrassment and expense of going to their shareholders to fix the breach rather than simply doing nothing?

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

In a decision handed down on 11 February 2016, the High Court has confirmed that the State Supreme Courts have jurisdiction to grant relief to plaintiffs seeking to join insurers of insolvent or potentially insolvent defendants, and a declaration that the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant. 

Introduction

The Court of Appeal has reiterated some important rules for funders involved in debt purchase. Banking Litigation specialist Alasdair Urwin looks at the recent case of Bibby Factors Northwest v HDF and MCD [1].

Buyer beware

This case concerned a factoring agreement, pursuant to which a funder (Bibby) purchased unpaid invoices from another company (the Assignor), including debts owing from the defendant companies (the Customers).

Tamaya Resources Limited (In Liq) v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu [2016] FCAFC 2

It is common in large complex cases for plaintiffs to seek to amend their claims during the course of the litigation. A plaintiff may be required to pay the costs thrown away but if its amendment application was brought in good faith and with a proper explanation, it would usually be able to amend its claim.

On 14 July 2015, the South Australian District Court in Matthews v The Tap Inn Pty Ltd [2015] SADC 108 handed down a decision whose underlying reasoning could, if applied by superior courts around Australia, broaden the scope for liquidators to pursue unfair preference claims against secured creditors.

The decision

In Stevensdrake Ltd v Hunt and others ^[1] the liquidator of Sunbow Limited, Mr Hunt, had brought a claim against Sunbow's former administrators. Mr Hunt entered into a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with the solicitors instructed to pursue the claim (Stevensdrake). The CFA stated "if you [Mr Hunt] win your claim, you pay our basic charges, our disbursements and a success fee". A settlement was agreed but one of the former administrators failed to pay the agreed sum.

The definition of a contract for the sale of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) is one in which the seller transfers the property in the goods to the buyer for money consideration, i.e. the price.

Under section 49 of SOGA, an unpaid seller can claim for the price of the goods if either: (1) the property in the goods has passed to the buyer; (2) or payment of the price is expressed to be payable on a certain day irrespective of delivery