Welcome to our latest edition of FMCG Express! 2020 continues to be an eventful year, although we are cautiously optimistic that we may be turning a corner in Australia. While COVID-19 continues to cast a shadow over our lives, our cities are starting to show green shoots of life, which is welcome news. Our thoughts are with our families, clients, associates, friends and colleagues in countries where numbers are at very concerning levels. In this edition, we have some useful COVID-19 reading. Siobhan Mulcahy considers the ongoing issues of JobKeeper with casual workers.
In the recent decision of Cant v Mad Brothers Earthmoving,[1] the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Justices Beach, McLeish and Hargrave) considered whether the liquidator of Eliana Construction and Developing Group (in liquidation) (Eliana) could establish that a payment made to an unsecured creditor of Eliana by one of Eliana’s related companies was an unfair preference.
The recent Federal Court decision of Scott v Southern Highlands Waste & Recycling Pty Ltd[1] provides liquidators with important guidance regarding the availability of search and seizure warrants under section 530C of the Corporations Act2001 (Cth) (the Corps Act).
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal has passed an order reiterating that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC), the successful resolution applicant cannot be permitted to be withdraw its plan.
RELEVANT FACTS
In Caron and Seidlitz v Jahani and McInerney in their capacity as liquidators of Courtenay House Pty Ltd (in liq) & Courtenay House Capital Trading Group Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2),[1] the New South Wales Court of Appeal was faced with what it described as the ‘classic insolvency conundrum’: how to distribute funds to investors as equally and as fairly as possible where the funds have
A contentious issue in the interplay between the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) and the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) has been the applicability of Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Section 18), which stipulates that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time of the acknowledgement of liability in writing before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation.
The recently announced proposed insolvency reforms draw on key features from Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States and aim to help more small businesses restructure and survive the economic impact of COVID-19.
The reforms will cover around 76% of businesses subject to insolvencies today, 98% of whom have less than 20 employees.[1]
In March, we reported that, as part of a suite of legislative and economic responses to COVID-19 the Commonwealth Government had announced a range of temporary amendments to certain insolvency laws. The amendments were aimed at temporarily amending insolvency laws, affecting in turn corporate governance, and directors’ duties.
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (NCLAT) in the case of Sh. Sushil Ansal Vs Ashok Tripathi and Ors, has reiterated that a decree-holder though covered under the definition of creditor under Section 3(10) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) would not fall within the class of financial creditors and therefore, a decree holder cannot initiate a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against a corporate debtor with an object to execute a decree.