Since late March 2020 there has been a steady stream of voluntary administrators seeking the assistance of the court to limit their personal liabilities under the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 (Act) by pointing to the social and economic disruptions and restrictions caused by COVID-19.

Ford (Administrator), in the matter of The PAS Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) v Scentre Management Limited [2020] FCA 1023

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices

In Yeo, in the matter of Ready Kit Cabinets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation,[1] the Court considered whether payments made to the Deputy Commission of Taxation (DCT) by a director of the company, required under a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) were recoverable as unfair preferences.

The Federal Budget update focused on Australia's economic position and the impact of the Government's response to COVID-19 and the 2019 – 20 Bushfires. Though no new measures were specifically announced, there were some additional items for certain existing programmes.

Key forecasted Budget figures

A recent saga played out in the Supreme Court of NSW illustrates why the dispute resolution procedures available to strata owners under the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 (NSW) make strata title superior to company title.

This is because company title property owners have only the blunt instruments of liquidation and administration available under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

This article analyses how poorly the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is equipped to handle disputes between owners of company title properties.

The PAS Group decision reaffirms the principle that rent incurred during the administration period takes priority in the winding-up payment waterfall

Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg announced recently that the Commonwealth Government is considering extending aspects of the ‘regulatory shield’ implemented on 24 March 2020, which provided temporary relief from certain insolvency laws for financially distressed businesses.

A 20 June 2020 decision of Justice O’Callaghan in the Federal Court confirms that rent incurred during the ‘no liability’ period will be payable as a priority expense in the liquidation of an insolvent tenant. This is regardless of whether or not the no liability period has been extended by the Court on application by the administrators.

The key facts

This decision puts to rest some of the uncertainty which arose due to the NZCA's approach in Timberworld and helps to solidify liquidators' prospects of recovering maximum preferential payments. 

Preferential payments can be an important source of funding for liquidators – and the recent decision in Bryant in the matter of Gunns Limited v Bluewood Industries Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 714 is a source of some relief for liquidators.

Timberworld – uncertainty over the impact on Australian liquidators