This week’s TGIF is the second of a two-part series considering Commonwealth v Byrnes [2018] VSCA 41, the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision on appeal from last year’s Re Amerind decision about the insolvency of corporate trustees.

The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (“the Committee”) has endorsed the passing of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 (“the Bill”) in its report dated 21 March 2018.[1]

In the recent decision of Jones (liquidator) v Matrix Partners Pty Ltd, re Killarnee Civil & Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCAFC 40 (Killarnee), the three member bench comprised Allsop CJ, and Siopis and Farrell JJ. Their Honours of the Full Court wrote three separate judgments, with the Chief Justice writing the lead.

Liquidators will generally be pretty happy if a court finds that a transaction was both an uncommercial transaction and an unfair preference and dismisses any defence. Unfortunately for the liquidator in Re Cyberduck Software Pty Ltd (In Liq) & Anor [2018] VSC 122 you can still fail.

In Cyberduck:

In handing over any documents in litigation or Court process, you must assess whether or not the documents have tax relevance.

JWS has achieved an excellent result for the liquidators of the Gunns Group, with success in the Federal Court’s judgment in Bryant (Liquidator) v L.V. Dohnt & Co Pty Ltd, In the Matter of Gunns Limited (In Liq.) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] FCA 238.

The Victorian Court of Appeal decides that the Corporations Act priority regime does apply to trading trusts.

The law is now clear. Or is it?

For the last two years and six days, insolvency practitioners and other stakeholders involved in the liquidation of trading trusts have been frustrated by what should be a very straightforward question.

If the company in liquidation carries on business through a trust structure, as many do, what is the order of priorities that the liquidator must apply when making distributions to creditors?

As part of the implementation of the Turnbull government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda, a suite of insolvency reform laws have been introduced, aimed at encouraging entrepreneurship rather than punishing corporate failure. The objective of these new laws is to provide viable but underperforming companies an opportunity to implement a turnaround strategy or sale of the business.

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of SurfStitch Group Limited [2018] NSWSC 164, where the Court refused to allow administrators to value claims of class action group members at a nominal $1 for voting at the second creditors’ meeting.

What happened?

On 11 December 2017, the administrators of SurfStitch filed an application seeking orders:

Can you prefer one creditor by arranging a third party loan, the proceeds of which are paid directly to that creditor, without the arrangement being void against your trustee in bankruptcy? “Yes” says the Full Federal Court – thus confirming an important distinction between personal and corporate insolvency.

Rambaldi (Trustee) v Commissioner of Taxation, in the matter of Alex (Bankrupt) [2017] FCAFC 217