Justice Robson has delivered his decision on an application by receivers and managers for directions as to, among other things, their obligations to pay preferential debts under the Corporations Act from the surplus generated by their trading-onof a business and other recoveries by their appointing bank.
Following consultation on exposure draft legislation between 28 March 2017 and 24 April 2017, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No.2) Bill 2017 (Cth) (Bill) was introduced into the House of Representatives and received its second reading speech on 1 June 2017.
The Bill proposes to:
Bicheno Investments Pty Ltd v David John Winterbottom [2017] NSWSC 536 has confirmed that the completion of a stocktake does not necessarily require a full physical stocktake. Rather insolvency practitioners may satisfactorily complete a stocktake by reviewing a business’ records, provided they are satisfied that those records are accurate and complete.
A recent Victorian Supreme Court decision has resulted in the Commonwealth losing priority status for some $3.8m paid to the employees of a collapsed company, due to an unusual gap in the priority regime created under the Corporations Act.
In the matter of the désastres of Gail Alison Cochrane and Orb a.r.l.
1. Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Litigation Capital Funding [2017]JRC171 ("the September judgment")
2. Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Dr Gail Cochrane [2017]JRC007 ("the January judgment")
3. Representation of the Viscount re Cochrane and Orb a.r.l. [2017]JRC025 ("the February judgment")
On 28 March 2017, the Turnbull Government released draft legislation which would implement wide-ranging reforms to Australia’s corporate restructuring laws. The draft legislation focuses on reforms to the insolvent trading prohibition (Safe Harbour) and introducing a new stay on enforcing “ipso facto” clauses during certain restructuring procedures (Ipso Facto).
The world of insolvency is currently undergoing serious review, with potential reforms flying around thick and fast. But talk of safe harbours and unenforceable ipso facto clauses (see our update here) have overshadowed a significant development that commenced on 1 March 2017: the ability for external administrators1 to now assign their rights to sue under theCorporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).
On 31 January 2017, the Supreme Court of New South Wales handed down judgment in In the matter of OneSteel Manufacturing Pty Limited (administrators appointed). This important decision highlights the severe consequences that may follow from seemingly innocuous mistakes made when registering security interests.
This week’s TGIF considers an objection by directors and related-party creditors to a liquidator retaining solicitors who had previously acted for a substantial creditor in proceedings against the company.
What happened?
On 15 August 2016, a statutory demand was issued to the operator of a Chinese dumpling restaurant. The restaurant operator failed to comply with the demand and was wound up by order of the Court. The petitioning creditor also obtained orders for the appointment of a liquidator to the restaurant operator.
Much has been written and discussed about Australia’s draconian insolvent trading laws and the Federal Government has taken note. It has released draft legislation seeking to amend the Corporations Act in a way that supports the restructuring of financially distressed companies. But do these amendments go far enough in providing companies with the time and space they require when they’re seeking to implement a financial restructuring plan?
BACKGROUND