In LCM Operations Pty Ltd, in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2021] FCA 324, the Federal Court considered whether a third party who has been assigned a company’s claim by a liquidator breached the Harman undertaking with respect to documents obtained through public examinations.

What happened?

The Arrium Series

Welcome to issue #2 of our Arrium Series, where senior members of the Baker McKenzie team involved in the successful defence of proceedings against the former CFO, former Treasurer and other former employees of the Arrium Group, consider key issues arising in those and related insolvent trading proceedings and from the judgment handed down on 17 August 2021.

In brief

With the courts about to consider a significant and long standing controversy in the law of unfair preferences, suppliers to financially distressed companies, and liquidators, should be aware that there have been recent significant shifts in the law about getting paid in hard times.

The recent interim decision of the Federal of Australia in Michele Bottiglieri Armatore SPA, Michele Bottigliere Armatore S.P.A [2021] FCA 795 highlights the Australian courts' willingness to recognise cross-border insolvencies in the context of foreshadowed arrests of vessels entering Australian waters.

The Melbourne RIT team recently published an article on the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Badenoch (No 1) [2021] FCAFC 64. On 24 June 2021, the Full Court published a second judgment that fixed the start and end dates of the ‘single transaction’ between Gunns and Badenoch.

The Gunns liquidators have since made a special leave application to the High Court to appeal both of the Full Court’s decisions.

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent Federal Court decision which offers guidance on when receivers may be released from claims arising out of their appointment and relieved from filing and serving formal accounts.

Key Takeaways

The recent Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal case of Quin v Vlahos [2021] VCSA 205 has clarified when third party funds, such as a sole director’s personal bank account, can be taken into account in determining a company’s solvency.

Key Takeaways

Until the recent decisions of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64 (Badenoch) and Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns

On 1 July 2021, the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) released its Personal Insolvency Compliance Program 2021–22, Regulatory Charter and Regulatory Actions Cooperation and Support Policy. These documents underpin AFSA’s regulatory priorities and enforcement obligations for the forthcoming year, particularly in relation to personal insolvency and the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR). Personal Insolvency Compliance Program 2021–22 Each year AFSA establishes a compliance program based on trends and current issues in the personal insolvency system.

It has been held that the non-payment of debt (even significant and undisputed debt) is not, of itself, sufficient to establish insolvency. There must be more.