This week’s TGIF considers In re City Pacific Limited in which the NSW Supreme Court considered whether to approve a liquidator entering into a litigation funding agreement under which the funder would receive a premium of at least 50% of any judgment or settlement achieved.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In late 2009, two related companies were wound up and the same liquidator was appointed. The liquidator instituted two proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court:

The Part 5.3A administration regime was introduced to facilitate orderly and timely outcomes for creditors. This is clearly evidenced by the relatively short time frame stipulated by the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) between when the first and second creditors’ meetings are to be held.

The recent WA Supreme Court decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 illustrates the risk of relying on contractual and statutory set-offs where the counterparty has granted security to lenders in an insolvency situation.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No 2) Bill 2017 was passed by the House of Representatives on 22 June 2017 and has had a second reading moved in the Senate. 

The Bill:

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in Mighty River International Ltd v Hughes & Bredenkamp [2017] WASC 69 (Mighty River v Hughes) has confirmed the legality and the utility of ‘holding’ deeds of company arrangement (colloquially referred to as ‘Holding DOCAs’).

Hold what?

Boart Longyear – the recent appeal decision

The limitations of set-off in a liquidation scenario and the nature and effect of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) have been clarified, with significant ramifications for principals and financiers, who should now review their rights, following the WA Supreme Court's decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] WASC 152 (Clayton Utz acted for the successful receivers).

This week’s TGIF considers Bunnings Group Ltd v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd & Anor [2017] WASC 132, where the Court considered whether the order of registration of caveats determined the priority of competing unregistered charges.

BACKGROUND

Bunnings and Hanson each supplied building materials to Capital Works prior to Capital Works’ liquidation by means of a creditors’ voluntary winding up.

Creation of the charges

In one of the most significant decisions relating to schemes of arrangement in Australia in recent years, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal challenging the composition of classes of creditors in the Boart Longyear restructuring.

On 1 June 2017 a new law came into effect in New South Wales relevant to liquidators’ rights to directly pursue the insurer of a proposed defendant, taking away significant uncertainty which existed previously because of antiquated provisions in a 1946 act relating to charges over and priorities to those insurance monies.

The new law now provides greater certainty for liquidators in deciding whether to bring proceedings directly against the insurers of directors and officers or indeed of other third parties against whom the liquidators may have claims.