ASIC’s record with land banking schemes has been the story of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. It has wound up insolvent schemes long after the investor’s cash has well and truly dissipated.

For example:

In New South Wales (NSW), unlike in Victoria, claimants in liquidation have been able to make claims under Security of Payments Acts (SOPA). This has been recently reaffirmed in the case of Seymour Whyte Constructions Pty Ltd v Ostwald Bros Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2019] NSWCA 11 (Seymour), where the court doubled-down on this position and further explained why the NSW position differs from the position taken by the Victorian Court of Appeal in the infamous Faade Treatment Engineering Pty Ltd (in liq) v Brookfield Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 247 (Faade).

The Federal Court of Australia rules that receivers appointed to a company in liquidation are entitled to pay employee entitlements and fees.

In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).

There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.

Can a builder that is in liquidation take advantage of the security of payment regime? Not according to a 2016 decision of the Court of Appeal in Victoria, but last month the NSW Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. In our latest Corrs High Vis podcast, Samuel Woff and Ryan Shlah sit down with presenter Wayne Jocic to discuss the two cases, and the approach taken by each Court.

There is now a divergence between New South Wales and Victorian authority on whether a company in liquidation may make a claim under Security of Payment legislation. The common law position in NSW is now that a company in liquidation can bring a Security of Payment claim. This decision will be rendered somewhat academic in NSW following enactment of legislation to come into force on a (currently unspecified) date in 2019 which has the effect of overriding this decision.

King (Trustee); In the matter of Zetta Jet Pte Ltd v Linkage Access Limited [2018] FCA 1979 is the latest in a series of decisions, across multiple proceedings, dealing with the dogged attempts of a United States bankruptcy trustee to recover a luxury yacht moored in Australian waters.

In this week’s TGIF, we consider the dangers of being the last one standing in ‘mothership’ preference claims. In the recent decision of In the matter of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 47, Black J ordered costs against a number of defendants to a preliminary question of insolvency even though they did not participate in the hearing of that question.

The recent decision of the Federal Court (Besanko J) in Lock, in the matter of Cedenco JV Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2019] FCA 93 illustrates the critical importance for administrators and liquidators of complying with the requirements in relation to remuneration reports to creditors, and the severe adverse consequences which may flow if they fail to do so.

Background facts

Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill