The decision in Re Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) (Receivers and Managers appointed); ex parte Jones [No 2] [2016] WASC 87 confirms that while some communications between liquidators, receivers and their respective solicitors can be privileged, it is not necessarily always the case. Critical factors include the purpose of the communication in question and whether there is a sufficient commonality of interest between liquidators and receivers in relation to the communication’s subject matter.

Facts

Introduction

In most cases, the precondition for the appointment of a liquidator and the winding up of a company by a court is that a company is insolvent. However, in some cases courts will make these orders in the context of a shareholders dispute where there is a management deadlock or a breakdown in trust and confidence between shareholders. Additionally, a court may make these orders where there has been serious fraud or mismanagement in the conduct of a company’s affairs.

Relevant law

A party to arbitration or court proceedings in Australia can obtain a freezing order in advance of obtaining a domestic court judgment or arbitration award, in prescribed circumstances. In PT Bayan Resources TBK v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd [2015]¹ the High Court of Australia has confirmed that Australian courts have the same power to grant freezing orders prior to a judgment or award being obtained in respect of proceedings commenced outside of Australia, provided that judgment or award would be enforceable in Australia.

Key Points:

Companies that have leasing as a small and irregular part of their overall business still must comply with the PPSA if their interests in leased goods are to be protected.

On 29 February 2016, the Insolvency Law Reform Bill 2015 received Royal Assent. The resulting Act, the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) represents the most significant suite of reforms to Australia’s bankruptcy and corporate insolvency laws in twenty years and is an integral component of the Federal Government’s agenda of improving economic incentives for innovation and entrepreneurialism.

Key Points:

In some circumstances a plaintiff/claimant can bypass a defendant (even an insolvent one) and seek a declaration against the defendant's insurer.

The High Court has confirmed that, if a defendant is insolvent, the plaintiff may seek a declaration that the defendant's insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant, at least when:

A recent decision of the Federal Court provides a timely warning for businesses engaged in cross-border trade where debts may be expressed in a foreign currency.  The take away point of the decision is that in issuing bankruptcy notices based on a judgment debt expressed in a foreign currency and allowing for payment in Australian currency, care must be taken to ensure the correct foreign exchange rate is applied.

BACKGROUND

The statutory order of priority as it relates to a superannuation guarantee charge liability was considered in the New South Wales Supreme Court proceeding In the matter of Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (No 2)[2016] NSWSC 106.

In January 2014 I published an article titled “Directors Duties – Insolvent Trading: Five rules to deal with a company in financial difficulty” in which I called upon the Federal government to reform Australia’s harsh insolvent trading laws and bring in some protections against ipso facto clauses in order to facilitate the restructuring of businesses.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Rahan Constructions Pty Ltd (Rahan) was contracted to undertake commercial construction and other works in about April 2012.  On or about this date, Rahan entered into a credit account with Asset Flooring Pty Ltd (Asset Flooring).  Rahan’s obligations under this credit account were personally guaranteed by the respondent, Mr North.

On 30 July 2013, Rahan was wound up by order of the court and Asset Flooring sought to enforce the guarantee for the outstanding balance owing under the credit account.