During the second half of 2019, it was generally accepted that the US/China trade war was the most likely macroeconomic event that would precipitate a global slowdown. Even then, given the enormous amount of ‘dry powder’ capital that was available in the market, the downturn, if any, was expected to be mild.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent application to the Queensland Supreme Court for judicial advice as to whether certain proofs of debt should be rejected due to the rule against double proofs.

Background

The introduction of a safe harbour protection for company directors was one of a number of generational reforms to the restructuring landscape throughout late 2017 and 2018 aimed at relaxing Australia’s unforgiving insolvency laws.

Now that more than a year has passed, have the safe harbour reforms been a success? And what steps can directors take to ensure they obtain the protections they afford?

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

On 9 April 2018 Linc Energy Ltd (in liquidation) was convicted of causing serious environmental harm at its pilot underground coal gasification facility near Chinchilla, Queensland.

Administrators were appointed to the company on 15 April 2016. On 23 May they were appointed liquidators after creditors resolved that the company be wound up.

This week’s TGIF examines the determination of an application by a liquidator for directions as to the conduct of further investigations and for those costs and expenses to be paid from the assets of a trust.

What happened?

On 16 March 2016, Australian Managed Print Services (Vic) Pty Ltd (AMPS) was wound up in insolvency and a liquidator was appointed by order of the court.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent proposals to crackdown on rogue directors and reduce the burden on FEG to pay unpaid workers.

A last resort – but for who?

On 17 May 2017, the Federal Government published a consultation paper inviting submissions on options for law reform to address corporate misuse of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee (‘FEG’) scheme.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent decision of Hastie Group Ltd (in liq) v Moore [2016] NSWCA 305 in which the Court held that privilege attached to an expert report prepared for the purpose of obtaining litigation funding.

WHAT HAPPENED?

The recent decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Limited ACN 119 186 971 (in liquidation) (no 2) [2016] NSWSC 106 found that the statutory scheme of priority does not apply to realisations from circulating trust assets. This decision has potentially profound impacts for both employees and secured creditors in the context of both liquidations and receiverships.

A summary of the case

This week’s TGIF considers a decision in which the Court held that an administrator who has unsuccessfully defended a proceeding may need to reinstate any remuneration previously received to satisfy the resultant costs order.

BACKGROUND

The deed administrator of a company subject to a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) rejected proofs of debt submitted by a number of creditors.  The creditors successfully appealed against the rejection of the proofs of debt.