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.
In December 2016 we posted on the NSW Law Reform Commission’s recommendation to replace section 6 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW). Six months later, we can now confirm that section 6 is (finally) dead and herald the new era of the Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Act). The new Act is now live (from 1 June 2017) and is a welcome clarification of the confusion and ambiguity caused by section 6.
This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales which considered whether payments made by a third party to a company’s creditors could be recovered as unfair preferences.
What happened?
On 2 September 2015, liquidators were appointed to a building and construction company (the Company) and later commenced proceedings against eight defendants for the recovery of payments considered to be unfair preferences.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently handed down an important judgment relating to the composition of classes in a creditors' scheme of arrangement. In First Pacific Advisors LLC v Boart Longyear Limited, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal brought by First Pacific Advisors LLC (FPA). The appeal was against an order made under s 411 of the Corporations Act 2011 convening meetings of creditors of Boart Longyear Limited (BLL) and several associated companies, to consider and if it saw fit, agree to two schemes of arrangements (one relating to