The Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) has operated for several years, but defective registrations remain a (sometimes serious) problem for many of those looking to protect their interests. Unlike with real property, the PPSR has no title registrars who will requisition faulty forms. The responsibility for noticing mistakes lies with the party attempting to protect their interests.
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.
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
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
Introduction
Ask any restructuring professional about the greatest challenge in restructuring and reorganising a business group with operations in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and he/she is likely to say that it is virtually impossible to take over control of the PRC operating subsidiaries without the co-operation of the existing PRC legal representatives.
Based on the current state of judicial consideration of s 548 (1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act), liquidators cannot be certain that a committee of inspection (COI) established at a general meeting of creditors alone is valid with the consequence that liquidators may be concerned about their reliance on past and future COI approvals to draw remuneration and take other steps in the winding up.
Re: the Bell Group Ltd (In Liquidation)
The liquidator of a company has an obligation to find out what led to the company’s failure, and take steps to maximise recovery for the company’s creditors. He is usually a stranger to the company’s business, and starts off at a disadvantage, having no prior knowledge of the company’s affairs, and usually incomplete and unsatisfactory records. He also has to deal with previous directors and officers of the company who are often uncooperative and may themselves be complicit in the company’s demise.