The Corporations Act 2001 sets out a regime for the order in which certain debts and claims are to be paid in priority to unsecured creditors.

That's straightforward enough for a liquidator, right?

Unfortunately, matters are not that straightforward. In effect, there are two priority regimes under the Act for the preferential payments of particular creditors, each of which applies to a different "fund", and we've observed this has led to some liquidators being unsure of how to proceed – or even worse, using funds they should not.

This decision puts to rest some of the uncertainty which arose due to the NZCA's approach in Timberworld and helps to solidify liquidators' prospects of recovering maximum preferential payments. 

Preferential payments can be an important source of funding for liquidators – and the recent decision in Bryant in the matter of Gunns Limited v Bluewood Industries Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 714 is a source of some relief for liquidators.

Timberworld – uncertainty over the impact on Australian liquidators

In cosa consistono le misure di moratoria previste per le PMI dal decreto “cura Italia”?

Il Decreto “cura Italia” prevede che le micro e le PMI che hanno sofferto crisi di liquidità a causa dell’epidemia da Covid-19 possano: 

Directors will soon be free to make decisions to trade on even insolvent entities, and incur debts in the ordinary course of business, with the passing of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 last night and Royal Assent today. The Act is intended to encourage business to continue trading free of risk that insolvent trading laws – which prevent directors of insolvent companies incurring fresh debt – would impose a personal civil and criminal liability on them. There are also changes to statutory demands and debtor's petitions.

ASIC is becoming more serious and more active and will take action against directors if there is su cient reason to, so insolvency practitioners should consider all possible actions/recoveries fully in any report to ASIC. 

A company's financial distress presents a challenge for its directors and officers of large and complex financial services companies and can raise a range of difficult issues, including potential liability for insolvent trading, which potentially exposes directors both to civil and criminal consequences under the Corporations Act 2001(Cth).

Italy is already implementing the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 June 2019 (the “Directive”), related to the preventive restructuring frameworks, discharge and measures aiming at increasing the effectiveness of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures, that Member States shall implement within 17 July 2021.

L’Italia sembra essere in netto anticipo nel recepimento della direttiva (UE) 2019/1023 del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio del 20 giugno 2019 (la “Direttiva”), riguardante i quadri di ristrutturazione preventiva, l'esdebitazione e le interdizioni, e le misure volte ad aumentare l'efficacia delle procedure di ristrutturazione, insolvenza ed esdebitazione, che gli Stati membri dovranno fare propria entro il 17 luglio 2021.

The equitable doctrine of marshalling can protect the security interests of subordinate secured creditors when a debtor becomes insolvent.

Marshalling is a neglected tool in the insolvency toolbox, but it can play an important role in protecting the security interests of subordinate secured creditors.

Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.