The ability of limited recourse provisions to protect borrowers and financiers against insolvency risks may be weaker due to a recent English court case.

Limited recourse clauses are often used in project and structured finance transactions. Borrowers want to avoid the risk of their directors being liable for trading while insolvent; and financiers may want to avoid the possibility of insolvency clawback actions if they seek to enforce their security documents.

In Lehman Brothers Australia Limited, in the matter of Lehman Brothers Australia Limited (in liquidation) (No 2) [2013] FCA 965, the Federal Court again confirmed that schemes of arrangement are a viable restructuring tool to compromise claims involving a class of creditors and third parties.

BACKGROUND

The Facts

In this case the liquidators of Octaviar Administration had obtained an extension to the time for them to bring voidable transaction proceedings under section 588FF(1) of the Corporations Act (Extension Order). Before the expiration of the Extension Order, the liquidators sought a further extension under s588FF(3)(b) or, alternatively, asked the Court to vary the date in the Extension Order pursuant to the Court’s procedural powers under r 36.16 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR).

In a recent decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (In the matter of C.V. Joint (Aust) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 981), a provisional liquidator was appointed by the Court to a company primarily due to an ongoing dispute between the directors and shareholders. The case is a useful reminder of the relevant principles that apply when seeking to have a provisional liquidator appointed.

Key takeaways

The NSW Supreme Court considered the application of the ‘Universal principle’ in Volkswagen Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd v Atlas CTL Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 573, dismissing a claim for an equitable lien made by administrators and liquidators for trading costs and remuneration.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the recent High Court decision in Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, which provides guidance on the range of potential purposes for which an examination of company officers may be legitimately pursued by ‘eligible applicants’.

Key Takeaways

The recent Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal case of Quin v Vlahos [2021] VCSA 205 has clarified when third party funds, such as a sole director’s personal bank account, can be taken into account in determining a company’s solvency.

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the decision of the Supreme Court In the matter of IW4U Pty Limited (In Liquidation) [2021] NSWSC 40, where the liquidators failed to recover compensation despite establishing contraventions of directors’ duties following an apparent phoenix.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in which an unfair preference claim was defended on the basis that the liquidators had been invalidly appointed and lacked standing to continue the proceeding.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers the Federal Court’s decision in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Merlin Diamonds Limited (No 3)[2020] FCA 411, in which, consequent on finding a number of contraventions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Court ordered the winding up of that company.

Background