When a company is in financial distress, creditors must consider whether to place the company into a formal external administration process. If they do so, the publicity and disruption that accompany a formal appointment may worsen an already fragile situation. Conversely, if no action is taken, the company may continue to burn cash, leaving creditors with little or no prospect of recovery.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has provided guidance as to the meaning of “true employer” for the purposes of the external administration provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) in In the matter of Mosaic Brands Limited (administrators appointed) (receivers and managers appointed) [2025] NSWSC 959. The decision is important for liquidators and receivers of large corporate group where there are individual trading and employing entities and funds have been recovered from circulating assets.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Successful outcomes for clients seeking to obtain winding up orders against foreign companies with local agents. The case summaries below, of Re Anagram International LLC (recs and mgrs apptd) [2025] VSC 267 and the earlier matter of W Capital Advisors Pty Ltd (in its capacity as trustee for the W Capital Advisors Fund) v Mawson Infrastructure Group, Inc (NSD1395/2024), provide guidance on how parties can best position themselves for success in these circumstances.

Relevant Law

Creditors’ statutory demands are a very powerful, and commonly used weapon by creditors.  They are cheap and easy to issue, and the consequences for not dealing with one appropriately can be extremely serious – i.e. liquidation.

Because of this, the courts enforce strict compliance with the requirements imposed on a party seeking to rely on one, so creditors should ensure they are up to date on those requirements.

The Federal Court declined to approve a creditors' scheme of arrangement by Twinza Oil Limited (Twinza). The scheme, supported by all scheme creditors, proceeded on the assumption that the ordinary and preference shares were worthless.

Key takeouts

In Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1200 the liquidators sought approval from the court to enter into a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement were against the former director and parent company for insolvent trading and the resulting loss.

Key Takeaways

In Re Bayview Health – Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd; ex parte Smith & Jacobs [No 2] [2025] WASC 405, the Court held that a failure to provide the 14 days’ notice of a board meeting, required by a shareholder agreement, to appoint a voluntary administrator, was a procedural irregularity that could be cured.

Key Takeaway

In Otway (liquidator), in the matter of AMD Freight Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2025] FCA 1169 the Federal Court of Australia considered an application for termination of a winding up under the Corporations Act brought by the liquidators of AMD Freight Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (Compan