Key points

Justice Black has confirmed in his written reasons for judgment in ReNexus Energy Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2014] NSWSC 1910 (Nexus) the utility of section 444GA to achieve debt for equity restructures of listed companies.

Companies in liquidation prevented from obtaining judgment for interim entitlements under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic)

Today the Victorian Supreme Court handed down a decision which provides certainty for the construction industry as to whether companies in liquidation can seek to recover interim entitlements under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act).

In brief - Courts identify three circumstances for ordering priority repayments

Property acquired by a bankrupt after the date of bankruptcy becomes property that is divisible amongst the bankrupts’ creditors. However, case law supports the conclusion that after-acquired income remains vested in the bankrupt. The question then becomes: what happens to property that is purchased by the bankrupt with after-acquired income? This question was considered in the recent case of De Santis v Aravanis [2014] FCA 1243.

Background 

The government has today announced that it is scrapping its plans to end the insolvency exception to the Jackson reforms from April this year (as we had reported here).

There are circumstances where a liquidator may approach the Court concerned that their position in future proceedings may be weakened if the matters they put before the Court in current proceedings are revealed. In an appropriate case the Court will make a non-publication order to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. The recent case of Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Piggott Wood & Baker (a firm) [2015] FCA 18 examined in what circumstances a non-publication order is necessary.

BACKGROUND

640 Elizabeth Street Pty Ltd (in liq) & Ors v Maxcon Pty Ltd [2015] VSC 22 confirms that the granting of security by a company to avoid a proceeding against a related company will not necessarily constitute an “uncommercial transaction”.

BACKGROUND

In the matter of One.Tel Limited (in liquidation) [2014] NSWSC 1892

On 16 January 2015, Justice Beech, of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, handed down his decision in the matters of Hamersley HMS Pty Ltd v Davis [2015] WASC 14 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v James [2015] WASC 10 (the Hamersley Decisions). In both matters, Hamersley sought to set aside determinations made by an adjudicator pursuant to the Construction Contracts Act 2004 (WA) (CCA) and Forge Group Construction Pty Ltd (In Liq) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (Forge) sought leave to enforce the determinations.

Key Points:

Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.

Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.

Insolvent subcontractor’s claim