The insolvency profession (and the Queensland market in particular) has been abuzz this year with the issue of CORA – a shorthand reference to theEnvironmental Protection (Chain of Responsibility) Amendment Act 2016 (Qld).
What does it mean for insolvency practitioners? Can banks really be hit with a bill to clean up their borrowers’ environmental damage? Will turnaround and restructuring professionals refuse to accept appointments out of fear of falling foul of the new regime?
This post explains what you need to know.
The Federal Court of Australia has handed down a decision that is a salutary reminder to directors that, in any corporate tax planning, it is important not to miss the forest for the trees. In a recent Federal Court of Australia decision, contentious tax planning was found to constitute a breach of directors’ duties for the directors involved, resulting in them becoming personally liable for ATO debts of the company.
What happened?
Insolvency practitioners can benefit from registration errors on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR).
Stay alert to any mistakes made by secured parties, as unregistered or invalidly registered interests could vest in the company.
Common errors include:
Two recent cases provide a timely reminder of the opportunities offered by creditor-funded litigation as a mechanism for bringing funds into what would otherwise be unfunded administrations. Both cases are examples of flexible and “light touch” exercises of judicial discretion which duly recognise the constraints and complex commercial considerations invariably encountered by liquidators in unfunded liquidations.
Approval of litigation funding agreements
This week’s TGIF considers State of Victoria v Goulburn Administration Services (In Liquidation) and Ors [2016] VSC 654, in which Special Purpose Liquidators were appointed despite a potential conflict arising from their firm having conducted compliance audits of the companies.
Background
There continues to be doubt about the validity of certain Committees of Inspection (COI) established during a liquidation and the approvals given by them. Another decision of Pritchard J in the Supreme Court of Western Australia reinforces the potential risk to liquidators relying on COI approvals in the scenario where no separate meetings of creditors and contributories (i.e. shareholders) are held to approve the establishment of a COI.
The use of pre-packs or pre-positioned asset sales in Australia has traditionally been limited. This is a result of impediments to such transactions under the Australian legislative insolvency regime.
The interplay of these impeding factors means that there are few true pre-pack transactions in Australia. However, significant reform to the Australian insolvency regime is expected to be implemented in 2017. We wrote about the main aspects of that reform in our last article, `Australian insolvency law reforms aim to increase business restructuring opportunities'
The Timbercorp Group invested in agribusiness Managed Investment Schemes on behalf of some 18,500 investors. Many investors in the schemes entered into loan agreements with Timbercorp Finance to finance their investments.[1]
Summary
The unanimous decision of the High Court on 9 November 2016 in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Collins & Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Tomes may increase the likelihood of satellite litigation by individual group members following group proceedings.
It follows from the decision that, if group proceedings are heard, group members are only bound by the answers to common questions and the pleadings; they are not, for example, precluded from raising individual claims which were not raised in the group proceeding.
This week’s TGIF considers Re Akron Roads Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) in which the Court held that the liquidators had standing to seek a declaration against an insurer arising from the assignment of rights under a policy.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The previous High Court decision