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”.

The Government has now announced its intention to proceed with the introduction of a bill to establish a farm debt mediation scheme, based in many respects on comparable New South Wales legislation. It is important for secured lenders to farming enterprises to consider in advance the implications of the bill and the necessary changes to product design, documentation, client relationship management and enforcement processes which may be required.

The scheme is intended to provide for fair, equitable and timely resolution of farm debt issues with two key objectives:

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of AIG Australia Limited v Kaboko Mining Limited [2019] FCAFC 96, in which the Full Federal Court found that an insolvency exclusion in a D&O policy did not apply to exclude claims brought against directors and officers of a company under external administration.

What happened?

In its much anticipated decision, the High Court has unanimously dismissed the Amerind appeal.[1] This decision finally resolves recent uncertainty as to the proper application of trust assets in the liquidation of an insolvent corporate trustee.

In short, the High Court’s decision confirms that in the winding up of a corporate trustee:

In the recent case of In the matter of Gondon Five Pty Limited and Cui Family Asset Management Pty Limited [2019] NSWSC 469, the New South Wales Supreme Court (Brereton J) considered the purpose and scope of an appointment as receiver to a company, and came down particularly hard on an insolvency practitioner for performing work and incurring expenses which were determined to be outside, or not incidental to, the scope of his appointment.

Background

Who should read this eBrief:

The significance of this decision

On 3 May 2019, the Federal Court of Australia dismissed an application brought by the administrators of an oil and gas exploration company, Paltar Petroleum Limited (Paltar) to adjourn proceedings for the winding-up of the company in insolvency. The decision illustrates that the belated appointment of administrators appointed by directors in response to pending winding-up proceedings is unlikely to keep at bay the approaching fire of liquidation; indeed, it may accelerate it.

Background

Increasingly, formal restructures, whether solvent or insolvent in nature, are closely aligned to court-supervised processes, adding certainty and transparency to the restructuring process.

The decision in the Go Energy Group is an important one for insolvency practitioners, who now have guidance on how to manage the conflicts that can arise when acting as liquidator to multiple companies within a corporate group.

On 27 March 2019, the Federal Court of Australia delivered an important decision demonstrating the Court's willingness to assist liquidators to streamline the procedural aspects of liquidations using technology with the aim of conserving assets for the benefit of creditors.