While the High Court has provided some clarity on the operation of the statutory priority regime, insolvency practitioners will still need to tread carefully when dealing with corporate trustees.

For insolvency practitioners who need clarity on how receivers and/or liquidators should pay, out of trust assets, priority employee claims arising from trust liabilities, the High Court's decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] HCA 20 (Amerind) is a welcome result.

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

The eagerly anticipated judgment in Amerind (Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth [2019] HCA 20) was handed down by the High Court yesterday after the High Court heard the matter in early February of this year. Mills Oakley acts for the Receivers who sought the directions given by the Court.

In three separate judgments, the High Court dismissed the appeal by Carter Holt Harvey, with the key findings as follows:

Key takeaways

Will a Court order security for costs against a liquidator with litigation funding? Not always, as a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court made clear.

Background

The defendant was the director of a company (Commercial Indemnity Pty Ltd or ‘Commercial Indemnity’) which provided agency services for commercial and industrial rental and petroleum bonds.

The Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth) (ILRA) introduced a range of measures intended to better inform and arm creditors in relation to external administrations and bankruptcies generally, but also specifically in the contentious area of practitioner remuneration. Although many of the reforms do appear to be changing the dynamics in disputes about remuneration, it is far less clear that the reviewing liquidator position is being utilised in corporate insolvency.

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: