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).
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
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]
Cory Bebb looks at a recent unsuccessful attempt by Administrators to block an £18.6M misfeasance claim by contributories.
“All cats are animals, but all animals are not cats” - former administrators’ attempt to stop £18.6M misfeasance claim based upon their CVA release clause, fails in a provisional ruling: Re Rhino Enterprise Properties Limited [2020] EWHC 2370 (Ch)
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 case of Re Lehman Brothers Europe Ltd (In Administration)[2020] EWHC 1369 (Ch) in May 2020 highlighted the importance of ensuring that creditors or the creditors committee approve the discharge of Administrators’ liability pursuant to paragraph 98 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986.
In SJG Developments Pty Ltd v NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq),[1] the Supreme Court of Queensland set aside a statutory demand served by the liquidators of NT Two Nominees Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (NT Two Nominees) on SJG Developments Pty Ltd (SJG). Costs were awarded on the indemnity basis and more significantly, were also ordered against the liquidators personally.