One of the key questions for an individual facing bankruptcy is how they can protect their assets from the trustee-in-bankruptcy (trustee) or from creditors. This is particularly relevant for the family/matrimonial home. One of the ways of protecting this asset is via the presumption of advancement.

This article explores a recent appeal case where the presumption of advancement, in relation to the family home, was rebutted.

What is the presumption of advancement?

The latest decision in the Arrium collapse should give some encouragement to Australia's restructuring sector.

Following a lengthy trial of 38 days in the NSW Supreme Court in March and April 2021, Justice Michael Ball (no relation) has handed down the decision in the two proceedings, Anchorage Capital Masters Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025.

In dismissing these proceedings, Justice Ball has given some comfort to restructuring in Australia,

This week’s TGIF examines a decision where the Court ordered a director, who caused a company to bring proceedings challenging a receiver appointment, to be joined to the claim and indemnify the company for its exposure to a costs order.

Key Takeaways

COVID-19 has made an undeniable and significant impact on many businesses around Australia. With each lockdown and implementation of harsh restrictions, business owners and directors are forced to scramble to keep their business afloat. No doubt liquidators will shortly be inundated with companies desperately trying to evaluate their options.

Insolvency, voluntary administration, bankruptcy and liquidation are terms that are consistently being thrown around. But what do they mean? Is there a difference?

Insolvency

In brief - Malvern Developments successfully applies to have creditor's statutory demand set aside, satisfying Supreme Court of a genuine offset claim

A recent case handed down in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Re Western Port Holdings Pty Ltd (rec and mgr apptd) (in liq) (2021) 39 ACLC ¶21-016; [2021] NSWSC 232, concerned the recoverability of payments as unfair preferences pursuant to Pt

The peak indebtedness rule employed by liquidators to maximise recovery of unfair preference claims is abolished

An appeal against a decision to summarily dismiss the appellant’s application to have consent orders set aside has been allowed, after the Full Court found that the appellant was no longer a person affected by the consent orders.

Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No. 2) (Substar No. 2) considers the Court’s discretionary power to terminate the winding up of a company pursuant to s 482(1) of the Corporations Act 2001. Substar No. 2 follows the decision of Hughes, in the matter of Substar Holdings Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2020] FCA 1863(Substar (No. 1), which considered the extent to which liquidators can realise trust assets when a corporate trustee enters into liquidation.

Section 440A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) requires the Court to adjourn a winding up application if it is satisfied that it would be in the best interest of creditors for the company to continue under administration rather than be wound up.