The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294

The Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision in The Australian Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v Environment Protection Authority [2021] VSCA 294 casts significant doubt on liquidators’ capacity to rely upon section 568 of the Corporations Act to disclaim environmental liabilities, despite the absence of any involvement of the liquidator in the creation of those liabilities.

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.

A recent decision has got the funding community talking and would, if times were different, have led to some water cooler moments. The decision is a mere 19 paragraphs long and, as will become evident, is perhaps as important for what it did not say as for what it did say.

A defendant’s bankruptcy filing need not spell doom for a plaintiff’s case. In fact, bankruptcy court is an attractive forum for plaintiffs in many ways.

Introduction

Federal equity receivers frequently lack the resources necessary to pursue litigation against individuals and entities that have defrauded or manipulated consumers and investors. As a result, they often utilize contingent fee arrangements, which can deprive a receivership estate of a significant portion of a recovery, usually taking 30 percent to 50 percent of an award or settlement.

With contributions by Deirdre Carey Brown, ForsheyProstok LLP

A company is pursuing a high-value claim against a defendant. The case is strong on the merits, and a substantial recovery appears to be in the offing.

That is, until the defendant files for bankruptcy.

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

Arbitral awards benefit from being widely enforceable. This is the case particularly in jurisdictions that are members of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 10 June 1958 (New York Convention). Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention is rejected only on narrow grounds (Article V). There is, however, an additional ground for an award to become unenforceable in a specific jurisdiction that is often overlooked: limitation periods.