The COVID-19 pandemic and the associated lock downs have led to a global economic slowdown, and Australia has been no exception. GDP fell by 0.3% in the March quarter, and on 3 June 2020 Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced that Australia was officially in its first recession in 29 years.

While the Australian Government was quick to provide a range of economic support measures – having already spent $289bn or 14.6% of GDP in an attempt to keep the economy afloat – Treasury expects Australia's GDP will decline by 0.5% in 2019-20 and a further 2.5% in 2020-21.

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.

Introduction 

Section 209(1) of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) empowers the Hong Kong court to make an order staying the winding-up proceedings after the winding-up order is made upon the application of, among others, a contributory. However, in the case of Safe Castle Limited v China Silver Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited [2020] HKCFI 1028, Harris J made it clear that the court will be reluctant to exercise its discretion to stay a winding-up order pending appeal.

Introduction

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

Introduction

Introduction

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).

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.