In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.
The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.
Over the past few years, the Belgian legislature has consolidated various pieces of legislation regulating businesses into a single instrument: the Code of Economic Law (Wetboek van economisch recht/ Code de droit économique). Insolvency law has not escaped this trend. In the summer of 2017, the Belgian Parliament enacted Book XX of the Code of Economic Law, entitled "Insolvency of Undertakings" (hereinafter the "Insolvency Code").
Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.
Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.
A snapshot of the court decisions
Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment in which it has given a detailed explanation of the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on a contract or other legal relationship.[1] The case in question involved a dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a bank as to whether the bank could file its post-bankruptcy l
Recently, the Dutch Supreme Court rendered a judgment in which it has given a detailed explanation of the effects of bankruptcy proceedings on a contract or other legal relationship.[1] The case in question involved a dispute between a bankruptcy trustee and a bank as to whether the bank could file its post-bankruptcy l
NautaDutilh
Introduction of senior non-preferred debt in the Netherlands
3 April 2018
FCS Financial Law
KEY TAKEAWAYS
A new EU Directive adopted in December 2017 will enable EU banks, large investments firms and relevant group companies (e.g. holding companies) to issue so-called 'senior non-preferred' debt instruments.
Such senior non-preferred debt will rank senior to regulatory capital instruments (CET1, AT1 and Tier 2) and other subordinated debt, but junior to the institution's senior debt (such as deposits and ordinary creditors).
On 11 September 2017, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the Senate. The Bill features two key changes to the Corporations Act:
Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.
It is common for commercial contracts to contain ipso facto clauses, which allow a party to terminate or modify the terms of the contract where the other party experiences an insolvency event. A concern addressed by the Government is that these clauses can prevent a financially distressed company from turning their situation around.
The High Court’s recent decision in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28 has confirmed a bankruptcy court can exercise a discretion to go behind the judgment debt where sufficient reason is shown for questioning whether there is a debt due to the petitioning creditor.