Directors of an insolvent company face a strict duty not to allow their company to trade whilst insolvent. Whilst there are exceptions and defences available for directors, the recent case of Smith v Bone [2015] FCA 319 demonstrates that:

a director will not easily be excused, especially where they fail to seek advice on the company’s solvency in circumstances which would warrant such an enquiry; and that directors should not assume that simply entering into certain arrangements with creditors is enough to prevent them being liable for insolvent trading.

Summary

Insolvency practitioners pursuing unfair preference claims should give consideration to a recent Queensland District Court judgment which has endorsed the application of section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) - which enables an insolvent company and a creditor to set-off their mutual debts against each other - to unfair preference claims.

In brief: The Victorian Supreme Court has provided guidance on set-off rights in the context of insolvency, particularly in relation to inconsistency between provisions of the Corporations Act and security of payment legislation. Partner Nick Rudge (view CV) and Lawyer James Waters report.

In this case, the High Court held that the proceeds of the sale of timber and land under a timber plantation scheme were not held on trust for investors by the scheme operators, with the result that they were available to secured creditors of the scheme in priority to the investors.  In particular, the High Court found that a trust will not arise without clear intention by the parties, and a court will not infer a trust simply because it thinks it is an appropriate means of protecting or creating an interest.  When establishing a managed investment scheme, parties shou

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria in Boz One Pty Ltd v McLellan¹ has recently confirmed that it will adopt a commercial approach to assessing the conduct of receivers. A private sale of charged assets will not necessarily breach s 420A of the Corporations Act 2001. A copy of the decision is available here.

Key Messages

You have done the work pursuant to the agreed terms of a customer service agreement ("CSA"). You should not have a dispute with your customer regarding what you have done and what you are entitled to be paid. However, they are not paying you or unable to pay you. What should you do to prevent this happening?

Security

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 4 February 2013, Stansfield DIY Wealth Pty Ltd (in liquidation) was wound up, and a liquidator was appointed. At that time, the only function of the company was acting as trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund. It had no assets or liabilities, save in its capacity as trustee of the super fund.

The High Court today granted special leave to the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) to appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133. The appeal is likely to be heard later this year.

Significance

The High Court has granted special leave to appeal the decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd(in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 which held that a liquidator is not required to retain funds from the proceeds of sale of an asset to pay tax before an assessment is issued.

Practical Implications

Background

Coin Co International PLC (Administrators Appointed) (Coin Co) was a company incorporated in the UK which conducted a cash services business in the UK and a global currency exchange business in various countries, including Australia.