Dominic Emmett and Hannah Cooper, Gilbert + Tobin

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Pre-Pack. The whole publication is available here.

In a last Amerind-tinged gift before Christmas, the High Court has today handed down another judgment on an issue which lies at the intersection between insolvency law and trust law, although this time in the bankruptcy context. It is the latest in a string of unfolding legal developments at this intersection, including the High Court’s decision in June in Amerind and the Full Federal Court’s decision last year in Killarnee.

This week’s edition of TGIF considers the landmark decision of the High Court in BMW Australia Ltd v Brewster; Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall[2019] HCA 45 and what it might mean for insolvency practitioners.

Decision

In a recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Black declined to provide Court approval to the provisional liquidators for payment of disbursements that contain a profit element.

His Honour observed that two fundamental questions arise when determining whether an external administrator may derive a profit from disbursements:

In the recent decision of Boensch as Trustee of the Boensch Trust v Scott Darren Pascoe [2019] HCA 49, the High Court has clarified whether property held by a bankrupt on trust for another vests in the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy, and the circumstances in which a trustee in bankruptcy will have reasonable cause to lodge a caveat to protect an interest in the trust property.

Background

The perception of Australia as being a relatively “risky” place to sit on a Board has generally focused on the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.^[1]

As the name suggests, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 (Model Law) seeks to address complexities caused where insolvencies cross borders, while leaving substantive insolvency laws of each country largely unaltered. However, as jurisdictions continue to adopt and interpret the Model Law, inconsistencies in its application are coming to light.

On 11 December 2019, the NSW Court of Appeal found that an administrator should not have used his casting vote to block a resolution for the appointment of a different person as the company’s liquidator. The decision (Glenfyne International Holding Limited v Glenfyne Farms International AU Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] NSWCA 304) reverses a previous decision where the Court found that it did not have the power to disturb the result of the vote.

Background

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Adelaide Brighton Cement Limited v Concrete Supply Pty Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) (No 4)[2019] FCA 1846, where the Court terminated a deed of company arrangement in circumstances where the administrators had not undertaken sufficient investigations.

Background

On 4 November 2017, administrators were appointed to Concrete Supply Pty Ltd.

This week’s TGIF considers the latest decision in Arrium and the recent refusal by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to set aside, on Arrium’s application, a summons for examination to a former director.

What happened?

On 15 May 2019, a Registrar issued a summons for examination and orders for production to a former director of Arrium following an application by two shareholders of the company. The shareholders had been authorised as eligible applicants by the ASIC the previous year.