In a recent case involving a default judgment to recover the sum of an outstanding loan, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether it had jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued against the guarantor of the loan and whether it had jurisdiction to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice.

Background

Anti-phoenix laws were introduced in 2020, however, it wasn’t until last week that a judgment enforced these laws in Court, setting out clear precedent for future cases. In the case of Intellicomms Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Intellicomms) & Ors v Technologie Fluenti Pty Ltd (Technologie Fluenti), Associate Justice Gardiner observed that the case had “all the classic hallmarks of a phoenix transaction” before handing down his decision.

The appointment of voluntary administrators to Probuild in March 2022 sent shockwaves through the construction industry. External administrations of other recognised brands such as Grocon, ABD Group, Privium and Condev have also caught media attention. Overall, external administrations in the construction industry have been increasing, notwithstanding that the insolvency numbers generally have declined to historical 20-year lows. The insolvency of each builder impacts numerous parties including developers, principals, sub-contractors, suppliers, consultants and employees.

In Algeri, in the matter of WBHO Australia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2022] FCA 169, the Federal Court heard the second application by the administrators who were seeking an extension to the convening period for the second meeting of creditors, which pursuant to section 439A(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) was set to expire on 24 March 2022.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in CGS Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd [2022] QSC 28 where it dismissed an application to restrain liquidators from engaging the same solicitors as a major creditor to conduct public examinations.

Key Takeaways

In a recent Supreme Court of Victoria decision[1] in which we acted for the successful liquidators, the Court made various orders to enable the company to complete an ultra-efficient, streamlined second voluntary administration to expedite creditor consideration of a new DOCA proposal.

Key points

Anti phoenix licensing provisions are catching Security of Payment culprits and victims.

Anti phoenix licensing provisions are catching Security of Payment (SOP) culprits and victims in a Covid-19 ‘perfect storm’. These provisions are designed to prevent people from lawfully and personally contracting if they are associated with company collapses. This also includes being meaningfully involved with the contracting companies.

Introduction

The practice area of bankruptcy & insolvency is in a constant state of flux. 2020 and 2021 saw some of the biggest reforms to our insolvency framework in 30 years, as businesses struggled financially with the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security.

The recent Federal Court decision in Diversa Pty Ltd v Taiping Trustees Limited has highlighted some important risks faced by secured parties who don’t pay attention to the details when perfecting, and maintaining perfection of, their security. Those risks include:

Contributed by William Malouf and Alexandra Stead, Senior Associates, Baker McKenzie