This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Re Aviation 3030 Pty Ltd (in liq) [2021] FCA 1244 on section 477(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act) and approval of a liquidator’s proposal to enter into a settlement agreement with obligations that extend beyond three months.
Key Takeaways
The Federal Court of Australia in Yeo, in the matter of Ready Kit Cabinets Pty Ltd (in liq) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2020] FCA 632 has examined the circumstances in which a payment made by a company subject to a deed of company arrangement may be challenged as an unfair preference.
The principal question for Middleton J was whether payments required to be made by a deed of company arrangement were therefore made “under the authority of” the administrators, within the meaning of s 588FE(2B) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Key Points: The High Court held there was no variation in the terms of the Charge and therefore no registration was required.
On 1 September 2010 the High Court handed down its much anticipated decision in the appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in Re Octaviar Ltd (No 7) [2009] QCA 282, unanimously dismissing the appeal in Public Trustee of Queensland v Fortress Credit Corporation (Aus) 11 Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 29.
The fixed and floating charge
Key Points: An administrator of a deed of company arrangement has been allowed to sell the company over a shareholder's objections.
The GFC has seen a significant rise in the number of corporate insolvencies.[1]
Many of those insolvencies have been the result of tighter credit, rather than a collapse of the company's business. It's no surprise, therefore, that there is a major appetite for the acquisition of distressed businesses and companies.
Important Features of this Judgment
- A Pt X Deed may create an equitable assignment of the rights, such that obligations continue after the Deed has come to an end.
- The Trustee of the Part X Deed of Arrangement can continue the proceedings initiated against One.Tel, despite the Deed coming to an end.
- Serves as a reminder that the enforceability of the debt does notaffect a debtor’s liability.
Facts
In brief
Insolvency Partner, Amanda Banton and Lawyer, Anna MacFarlane summarise the High Court’s judgment delivered on 14 April 2010 in which the Court held, as the Full Court of the Federal Court held in first instance, that, properly construed, Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act (Cth) 2001 does not permit third-party releases within DOCAs.
The important features of the judgment:
The High Court of Australia is expected soon to hand down its judgment in Lehman Brothers v City of Swan. It is likely that this judgment will definitively determine whether Deeds of Company Arrangement under Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Act (“the Act”) are able to force creditors to give releases to third parties.