The Supreme Court of Victoria has recently considered whether trust property is subject to the priority regime provided for in section 556 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Australian equivalent of New Zealand's Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993).  It also considered whether a trustee's right of indemnity is subject to the obligations of receivers under section 433 of that Act, to pay employee entitlements in priority out of assets subject to a circulating security interest.

It is not uncommon for administrators to be appointed in the period between a company being served with a creditor’s winding up application and the date on which that application is to be heard. Despite their appointment, and unless the administrator attempts to intervene, the Court can and often will hear the winding up application and, if appropriate, order that the company be wound up and terminate the administration.

Directors play a central role in the management of a company and are therefore pivotal to its growth and success. In addition to the day-to-day duties associated with operating and managing the business of a company, it is important that directors also understand the legal duties and obligations associated with their appointment.

Changes to the Australian Insolvency regime continue to progress through the legislature as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017. The amendments are intended to allow companies and directors protections whilst they informally restructure, rather than requiring potentially premature entry into formal insolvency proceedings. It is hoped this will increase the turn-around prospects of those companies.

In a recent article published in the Insolvency Law Journal[1], I discussed some of the difficulties encountered by liquidators and courts in trying to apply Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act to trustee companies. Liquidating a trustee company gives rise to an added layer of complexity in liquidations, with the liquidator obliged to follow not only the statutory regime, but to also comply with the equitable principles of trusts and potentially the trust deed itself. Trustee companies are the ‘square peg’ in the round hole of the Corporations Act.

A recent court decision is a timely reminder of the limitations that can affect a person’s ability to rely on set-off rights when a debtor or contract counterparty becomes insolvent.

In the recent case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], the Western Australian Supreme Court has confirmed that the grant of a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (PPSA) by a company to a third party will likely render any rights of set-off enjoyed by the company’s contractual counterparties worthless where the company subs

On 13 June 2017 the Australian Financial Review published an article titled “SumoSalad uses Insolvency Laws to fight Scentre’s Westfield”.

Long-awaited law reform to bring Australia's insolvency regime into step with many of its trading counterparts is slated to be enacted in the second half of 2017. The text of the law is currently before parliament for debate. If passed, Australia will see:

Section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that a liquidator must not enter into any sort of agreement that may last longer than three months without first obtaining approval of the Court, of the committee of inspection or by a resolution of the creditors.

Typically, a litigation funding agreement will be caught by this section because it will last more than three months.

The reference to ‘enter into an agreement’ could also catch a novation, and potentially a variation, to an agreement.