For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.

The Supreme Court has just delivered a judgment confirming the entitlement of a judgment debtor to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution.

The comprehensive judgment is a useful history lesson in the development and expansion of the right to appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution which derives from the old Judicator (Ireland) Act, 1877.

Background

Judgment was obtained by a bank in February 2011 against two borrowers in the amount of €1,064,747.

In a recent application for directions from the High Court, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (the “ODCE”) brought a motion to compel a liquidator contest an appeal by directors of a restriction order made against them in the High Court.

Section 683 of the Companies Act 2014 (“CA14”) requires the liquidator of an insolvent company to apply for an Order restricting the directors. It does not require liquidator to contest an appeal by directors. The ODCE ultimately withdrew the application and paid costs, but the application raises concerns for all liquidators.

Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill

The sale of gift vouchers and their terms and conditions is largely unregulated in Ireland.

Although there is no specific legislation, gift vouchers provided to consumers are subject to the provisions of general consumer protection legislation, such as the Consumer Protection Act 2007.

Gift vouchers that cover a wide range of traders and retailers such as the “All4One” vouchers come within the definition of “electronic money” in the European Communities (Electronic Money) Regulations 2011 are subject to the provisions of those Regulations.

Overview

The perception of Australia as a relatively “risky” place to sit on a board, arises in no small part from the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.[1]

Coast Stores, the occasional wear retailer and high street stallworth has gone into administration in the UK.

Coast’s sister brand Karen Millen had partially rescued the company, buying its department store concessions arm, website, safe guarding up to 600 jobs. However, as part of a pre pack administration deal, it will not be maintaining Coasts overseas stores or its UK high-street stores.

Administration and deeds of company arrangement have continued to have significant influence on major restructurings in the Australian market. In larger restructurings, administrations represent significant transactions where capital is deployed strategically to acquire businesses at significant discounts. A sound understanding of the procedures is key to private equity players for many reasons. Portfolio companies can be exposed to administrations where suppliers, customers or competitors experience financial difficulties.

Kiely Rowan plc the company which owns the business of Irish designer Orla Kiely went into liquidation last week. The retailer closed its online shop as well as one in Kildare Village and two in London. This is very sad for the employees and customers of Orla Kiely as well as her creditors.

However, what does it mean when one hears that a company has gone into liquidation?

The dialogue is changing yet is the law enabling the practical change Directors need?

Achieving significant cultural shift in any business environment is no easy task, so it’s by no means ground-breaking to declare that after 1 year in operation, it still cannot be said that the new “Safe Harbour” legislation has resulted in a cultural change among directors.