The Federal Court recently handed down another decision arising from the collapse of Babcock & Brown. In its decision, it clarified how continuous disclosure obligations intersect with insolvency.

The case was brought by various shareholders against Babcock & Brown Limited and its liquidator. Amongst other things, the shareholders claimed that:

ASIC has recently released its report regarding the regulation of registered liquidators for the 2014 calendar year.

In brief: The Supreme Court of Queensland recently considered whether liquidated damages in a standard form construction contract were a penalty. In a decision that traversed long-held doctrines on penalties and recent developments in Andrews and Paciocco, the court ruled that the obligation to pay liquidated damages in this case was not penal.

The Federal Court of Australia has recently issued a decision clarifying the breadth of its powers under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (the Act).

Another judgment has been handed down in the ongoing dispute between the MFS/Octaviar liquidators and Fortress Credit Corporation (Australia) II Pty Ltd (Fortress). In this latest decision, the NSW Court of Appeal has confirmed that a creditor can attack a litigation funding agreement entered by a liquidator.

The relevant facts were as follows:

The latest statistics on insolvency appointments (for the period January 1999 to March 2015) and companies entering external administration (for the period July 2013 to March 2015) have been released.

In brief: A Supreme Court of Queensland judgment handed down today has provided greater certainty for secured creditors of companies that earn profits following the appointment of a receiver. The judgment dispels suggestions that the law was uncertain and means that secured creditors can continue to fund receivers confident that any trading profits will be distributed to them as secured creditors and not to priority creditors.

In brief: The Victorian Supreme Court has provided guidance on set-off rights in the context of insolvency, particularly in relation to inconsistency between provisions of the Corporations Act and security of payment legislation. Partner Nick Rudge (view CV) and Lawyer James Waters report.

A recent Victorian Supreme Court decision considered whether, in the context of liquidation, securing the indebtedness of a third party to avoid potential litigation exposure is an uncommercial transaction. The decision indicates that such a transaction will not necessarily be uncommercial and consequently voidable where the company receives a benefit in avoiding a potential exposure and the company's net position remains the same.

The latest statistics on insolvency appointments and companies entering external administration have been released, based on data gathere