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.

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

Significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency law introducing a “safe harbour” for directors who suspect their company may become or be insolvent have now commenced.

The Corporations Act imposes a duty on company directors to prevent a company from trading whilst insolvent. A director of a company can be personally liable for any debts incurred by a company trading whilst insolvent and might also have civil or criminal penalties imposed against them.

On 1 September 2017, the remaining parts of the new Insolvency Practice Schedule (IPS) introduced by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) as Schedule 2 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) commenced operation, including the provisions relating to "funds handling" contained in Division 65 of the IPS. These provisions apply to all "external administrations"1. including those that commenced prior to 1 September 20172.

This week’s TGIF considers Ziziphus Pty Ltd v Pluton Resources Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in liq) [2017] WASCA 193, where the Court considered the impartiality and independence of liquidators.

BACKGROUND

Factoring agreements are very popular with subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry, assisting cash-flow by providing a line of credit against accounts receivable. However, like any financial product, they can present complexities, pitfalls and at times surprises when pursuing debt recovery and enforcement action. 

Where a subcontractor is factoring its debts:

Australia’s restructuring landscape has changed significantly in recent weeks on two fronts. One of the changes arises from the safe harbour and ipso facto reforms to Australia’s insolvency laws receiving royal assent on 18 September 2017. The second event arose rather more unexpectedly from the Federal Court decision of Re Korda, in the matter of Ten Network Holdings Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed)(Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] FCA 914 (Ten Decision).