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.

It has taken 12 months, but new legislative provisions are now in place to deal with the problems for representatives of incapacitated entities arising from Logan J's decision in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v PM Development Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1,886.

The new provisions go beyond merely addressing the outcome of PM Developments. They also introduce new obligations for representatives of incapacitated entities as well as some concessions and protections.

The House of Lords has ruled that English assets of the HIH group of companies are to be remitted to the Australian liquidators for distribution under Australian law. This briefing discusses the background to McGrath and another and others v Riddell and others [2008] UKHL 21 and the implications of the ruling.

Background

The House of Lords recently had to consider whether the English court should remit assets when faced with a request to do so by a foreign court.

MCGRATH AND ANOTHER v RIDDELL, House of Lords, 9 April 2008

The liquidators of the HIH group of Australian insurance companies appealed against the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that certain assets of the HIH group, mostly reinsurance claims on policies taken out in the London market, should not be remitted to Australia. The courts instead ordered that the assets should remain in England and be distributed to creditors in accordance with English insolvency laws.

In a July 12, 2007 post, we reported on issues relating to HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited (“HIH”). The question before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a request under the Insolvency Act for directions to the liquidators in England to transfer assets collected by them to the liquidators in an Australian liquidation. The Court of Appeal held that it would not direct a transfer of the English assets by the English provisional liquidators to the Australian liquidators because to do so would prejudice the interests of many of the creditors.