Summary

In an exciting week for insolvency, the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law has released a package of reforms to Australia’s corporate insolvency laws. This reform package includes:

On 25 January 2010, the United States Bankruptcy Court handed down its much anticipated decision in relation to an action brought in that court by two Lehman Brothers entities (the Lehman entities) against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited (BNY) (the US Decision).

The High Court of Australia’s Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic (Sons of Gwalia) decision recognised an aggrieved shareholder’s claim for damages (in relation to the acquisition of shares) on equal footing with those of an insolvent company’s other unsecured creditors. Dispute Resolution Associate, Justin Le Blond, examines the Government’s response to the decision.

There have recently been a number of significant developments in relation to schemes of arrangement. These include:

• the Federal Court refusing to make orders convening a meeting of CSR’s shareholders to vote on a demerger proposal by way of scheme, on public policy and commercial morality grounds relating to CSR’s potential asbestos liabilities
• the Government’s corporate law advisory body recommending significant reforms to the scheme regime, and
• developments regarding ‘hostile schemes’.

Each of these developments is discussed below.

The Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) was amended to address the outcome of the High Court's decision in Cook v Benson1. It was held in that case that a trustee in bankruptcy could not recover amounts transferred from a retirement fund to another superannuation fund after the bankruptcy of the member as the amounts rolled over to the fund by or on behalf of the member were made in good faith and for consideration (ie the member had a right to receive benefits on retirement).

The significant increase in the number of companies passing into liquidation in the current economic climate has focussed Courts on whether they can summons a non-resident. Dispute Resolution Associate, Justin Le Blond, examines the position.

Introduction

By unanimous decision in Bruton Holdings Pty Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioner of Taxation1, five members of the High Court have reversed a controversial decision of the Full Federal Court to confirm that the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) cannot ‘leap-frog’ other creditors in a liquidation.2

Introduction

The New South Wales Supreme Court has found a solicitor liable for facilitating unlawful ‘phoenix’ activity.1 Phoenix activity consists of transferring business assets out of an old debt-laden company (which subsequently goes into liquidation) to a new debt free company. The new company carries on the business of the old company; but the assets are put beyond the reach of the creditors of the old company.

The High Court’s recent decision in Bofinger v Kingsway involves the law respecting sureties, their obligation to indemnify the creditor and right to indemnity by the principal debtor, and the operation of the doctrine of equity associated with the term “subrogation”.

In response to a degree of uncertainty as to a director's statutory duty to prevent insolvent trading, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has released a consultation paper containing a number of proposals on this fundamental duty (Consultation Paper 124: Duty to prevent insolvent trading: Guide for directors). Importantly for directors, the consultation paper (which contains a draft Regulatory Guide) identifies the factors ASIC considers when deciding to commence an investigation in relation to possible insolvent trading.