Australia is on the cusp of implementing various changes to the Bankruptcy Act 2001 (Cth) that will likely increase the number of people voluntarily entering into personal bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Amendments (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 was introduced in the Senate on 19 October 2017. The Bill follows from reforms proposed in the National Innovation and Science Agenda (from which the ‘Safe Harbour’ Reforms also originated).[1]

The recent judgment of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in Hughes v Pluton Resources Ltd 1, concerns the interaction between a deed of company arrangement (‘DOCA’) under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘CA’) and the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (‘PPSA’).

On 11 September 2017, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the Senate. The Bill features two key changes to the Corporations Act:

With the enactment of the ipso factoreform in September this year (which commences operation on 1 July 2018), it is the genuine hope of many insolvency practitioners and others in the market that voluntary administration will become a less value-destructive and, therefore, a more useful tool for company restructures.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of Simpson & Anor v Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (in liq) [2017] QCA 274 in which the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether a disposition of property by a company after the commencement of its winding up was void

BACKGROUND

Mr Simpson was the sole director and shareholder of Tropical Hire Pty Ltd (company). It had operated a successful business until that business was sold in 2009. After the sale, the company did not trade.

In certain circumstances, liquidators may be at risk of personal exposure to costs orders in litigation. 

The court’s approach to the making of costs orders against liquidators depends on (amongst other things) whether the liquidator is a named party to the proceedings, whether the liquidator is commencing or defending proceedings, and whether the liquidator has acted ‘improperly’ or unreasonably in the commencement, maintenance or defence of the action.

Proceedings commenced by the liquidator / company in liquidation

From 1 July 2018, reforms to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) will become effective including the addition of safe harbour laws and protections against ipso facto clauses.

If you've ever traded with a company that subsequently enters liquidation, you'll know that it can be very frustrating and disruptive to your business. If the company owes you money and you're an unsecured creditor, you'll join the (often long) line of other unsecured creditors and may see little or no money at the end of the process.

Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.

Since the landmark decision in Re Solfire Pty Ltd (In Liq) (No. 2) [1999] 2 Qd R 182, the Queensland Supreme Court has often marched to its own tune when reviewing applications for insolvency practitioner remuneration and disbursements. In two related decisions arising from the insolvency of LM Investment Management and managed investment schemes of which it is responsible entity, the Court has now turned its attention to the controversies in this area over proportionality and access to trust assets with which its counterparts in New South Wales have grappled over the last 18 months.