A recent Full Court decision is a win for directors who hold D&O insurance policies, as well as those seeking to bring proceedings against directors of an insolvent company – probably to the dismay of insurers.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent insolvent trading claim involving novel questions in relation to privilege against self-incrimination and the apportionment of liability between successive directors.

Background

Facts

Mr Lock and Mr Sheahan (the liquidators) performed their roles as administrators, and then as liquidators, of three companies.

The liquidators carried out numerous tasks across four work streams: (1) investigating the identities of a creditor and shareholders of one of the companies; (2) potential claims against the companies’ directors and a bank; (3) issues arising under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth); and (4) applications relating to receivers that had been appointed.

Liquidators are encouraged to seek advice or directions from the Court as to the discharge of their responsibilities. But who bears the costs of such proceedings, of the liquidator and of any contradictor involved?

In O’Keeffe Heneghan Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Aus Life Pty Ltd (in liquidation); Rocky Neill Construction Pty Ltd (in liquidation) trading as KNF Group (a firm) (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1958, the NSW Supreme Court strongly reminded us of the superior priority that an authorised deposit-taking institute’s unregistered security interest (perfected by control) has over the interests of secured creditors perfected under the personal property securities regime. The proceedings involved three companies in liquidation (together known as KNF Group).

This week’s TGIF considers Re GGA Lifestyle Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); Ex Parte Woodhouse [2019] WASC 167, where the Supreme Court of Western Australia clarified that a voluntary administrator of a company in administration is able to claim costs of care, preservation and realisation of partnership assets of the company in administration through an equitable lien in the same way liquidators can.

What happened?

It’s tempting for a company director to not respond to a liquidator’s request to produce financial records if they contain incriminating material, but is it wise?  

In Lock, In the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2019] FCA 879, the Federal Court ordered liquidators John Sheahan and Ian Lock (Liquidators) to repay approximately AU$1.9 million (or 30%) of the remuneration they drew in their role as administrators and liquidators of SK Foods Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation), Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) and SS Farms Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

The Court also ordered that the Liquidators:

On 19 June 2019, the High Court delivered its much anticipated decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20.

For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.