What you need to know

The Court of Appeal – Supreme Court of Western Australia has confirmed that the existence of a general security interest does not of itself destroy mutuality between a company in liquidation and its creditors and as a consequence section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) can apply to allow a creditor to set-off its debts against amounts owed to the company in liquidation.

In a comprehensive unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed the following propositions:

In July 2017, we wrote about the case of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed)[1], in which the Western Australian Supreme Court held that rights of set off enjoyed by an insolvent company’s contractual counterparties would not apply if the company had granted a security interest over the relevant contractual righ

The serious consequences that follow a failure to comply with the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 (Cth) (PPSA) were highlighted in the recent decision of Ward CJ in Eq of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Psyche Holdings Pty Limited [2018] NSWSC 1254 (Psyche Case).

The Psyche Case is another reminder of:

The Court of Appeal - Supreme Court of Western Australian has delivered a decision confirming that a statutory set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act can still be available to a creditor where a general security interest has attached to the amounts it is seeking to set-off (provided those amounts are circulating assets of the insolvent company), whilst leaving the door open for creditors to rely upon set-off rights at general law in those instances where set-off under s 553C is unavailable.

Liquidators have more certainty about their ability to disclaim the environmental liabilities and responsibilities of a company in liquidation.

Global Restructuring Review is a leading source of news and insight on cross-border restructuring and insolvency law and practice, read by international lawyers, insolvency practitioners and accountants, judges, corporate counsel, investors and academi

On 12 September 2018, the High Court of Australia (High Court) gave judgment in the case of Mighty River International Limited v Hughes (Mighty River).1 In that decision, the High Court (by a 3:2 majority) held that a “holding” deed of company arrangement (DOCA) is valid.

In brief

The High Court has refused to grant the Queensland State Government (Qld Government) special leave to appeal the Queensland Court of Appeal’s March 2018 decision in favour of the liquidators of Linc Energy, concerning the liquidators’ obligations to cause Linc Energy to comply with an Environmental Protection Order (EPO).

This month at Business Breakfast Club, Lachlan Abbott and Fergus McFarlane of Ernst & Young provided the liquidator’s perspective on legal and illegal phoenix activity. Owing to growing concerns around phoenix activity there has been an increase in regulatory attempts to deter and disrupt illegal phoenix activity.

What is Phoenix Activity?

The last few years have seen the Commonwealth increasingly crack down on misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, or FEG, program. The cases that have resulted have led to various disputes in insolvency law about the priorities of different creditors. The priorities to be applied in insolvent trading trusts have been one issue recently puzzling lawyers and insolvency practitioners alike. Relief may well be around the corner, however, as the High Court is set to weigh in.

What the FEG?