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.
Section 37A can be used by future, contingent and prospective creditors to recover assets, meaning the transferor need not be indebted at the time of the transfer.
Recovering assets from a debtor is usually done via the recovery provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or theBankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), but there is another option, at least in New South Wales, which offers creditors, insolvency practitioners and any prejudiced parties a useful alternative. A recent case demonstrates its advantages (Lardis v Lakis [2018] NSWCA 113; Clayton Utz acted for the successful creditor).
The reforms proposed to combat illegal phoenix activity range from light-touch through to more significant changes to the Corporations Act.
Key Points:
While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.
Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?
Key Points:
Principals or contractors dealing with insolvent downstream companies should ensure they can properly substantiate any counterclaims.
Usually a principal is not entitled to rely on a set-off or counterclaim to resist court proceedings to recover a debt under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (Vic) (SOP Act). However because of the operation of section 553C of the Corporations Act, the situation is different if the claimant is in liquidation.
Insolvent subcontractor’s claim
The NSW Government has accepted some of the key recommendations of the Recommendations of the Independent Inquiry in Construction Industry Insolvency in NSW, including the introduction of bonds. We know that the Government will:
One could almost be forgiven for thinking that nowadays delayed second creditors' meetings are just par for the course.
Applications to extend the time for the second meeting - often for months - have become quite routine, and are rarely (if ever) refused.
Some observers might thus wonder if we are losing sight of one of the objectives of the VA procedure - that it "should be expeditious".[1]
The High Court today gave the first decision, globally, of a Court of ultimate appeal on the question of the construction of Article XI(2) of the Cape Town Convention's protocol on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment (Aircraft Protocol), which is of seminal importance for financiers and lessors of aircraft property, insolvency administrators globally.
Liquidators need to be mindful that a disclaimer of property may be challenged. The Supreme Court of Victoria underscored a key issue in establishing "prejudice" to creditors in a liquidation, holding that a disclaimer of property may be set aside where the liquidators are indemnified.
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.