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

受疫情影响，英国越来越多的企业出现运营困难。虽然英国政府出台了多种补救措施，但仍会有很多企业将不可避免地面临破产。对因各种原因可能受到英国公司破产影响的中国公司或个人，本文将从英国破产法角度简要介绍英国公司破产程序、这些程序对于公司和普通债权人的保护，以及担任破产公司董事需要关注的问题。

一. 公司什么时候算破产？

英国的破产法规定主要来源于《1986年破产法》（Insolvency Act 1986）和《1986年破产规则》（Insolvency Rules 1986）。虽然《1986年破产法》没有给破产以明确的定义，但采用了"无力偿还债务"的概念。因此，在英国公司破产一般包含两种情况：一是公司没办法支付债务（现金流量破产 – Cash-flow insolvency），二是公司负债大于资产（资产负债表破产- Balance-sheet insolvency）。

现金流量破产一般表现为公司没办法支付其现有的债务。值得注意的是，即使公司可以支付现有债务，但如果没办法支付其在不远的未来产生的债务也将被视为破产。

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.

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.

Payment of priority creditors under section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is an activity conventionally performed by liquidators, albeit the section is silent as to the holder of the relevant payment obligation. The Federal Court of Australia has recently confirmed that distributions to priority (employee) creditors are not the exclusive purview of liquidators (where receivers are appointed contemporaneously); receivers may exercise the powers contained in section 561 to distribute certain funds to such priority creditors.

Forum bias, along with some technical issues, are still challenges in cross-border insolvencies in Australia

Just over ten years ago, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy in the US, which turned out to be one of the largest cross-border insolvency cases in history.

Last year also marks:

It is inevitable that companies will face periods of financial distress during their corporate lives. During these times, it is incumbent on the directors and management to seek to maximise the company's chances of survival and preserve value for stakeholders. Certainly it has not been uncommon for directors to use the threat of voluntary administration as a part of their stakeholder management strategy during these times.

Creditors' rights to information and records