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.
On 19 October 2017, the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 was introduced into Parliament by the Commonwealth Government in order to reduce the default period of bankruptcy from three years down to just one year. The stated objective of the Bill is “to foster entrepreneurial behaviour and reduce the stigma associated with bankruptcy whilst maintaining the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement frameworks for the personal insolvency regime.”
The new section 588GA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides a “safe harbour” from insolvent trading claims for directors who, when suspecting a company may be or is insolvent, start developing a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company.
Hughes v Pluton Resources Ltd [2017] WASCA 213
This case concerned the application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (the PPSA) to funds held by a company in liquidation following the termination of a DOCA. In the course of its decision, the Court considered the meaning of various provisions of the PPSA, including:
The new Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Bill 2017 (Qld) was assented to on 10 November 2017, which will see the introduction of project bank accounts (PBAs) into the Queensland construction industry. As the project bank account provisions will be trialled from 1 January 2018, contractors, at least those involved in State Government projects, should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions.
What Are Project Bank Accounts?
A PBA is a trust over:
From 1 July 2018, amendments to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in the form of a new ‘ipso facto’ regime come into effect. The new amendments are part of the Federal Government’s commitment to assisting builders in financial distress.
Background