The approach of the Cayman Grand Court to the terms and timing of the discharge of provisional liquidators of In the Matter of Star International Drilling Ltd (unreported, FSD 88 of 2021 ASCJ) may provide a window into what is expected to be a similarly flexible approach to the appointment of restructuring officers.

Star International Drilling Ltd's application to discharge its joint provisional liquidators

Directors who oppose company windings up with little more than a hope that a restructuring proposal may bear fruit may have to weigh their actions carefully going forward, following a recent decision by the Hong Kong Companies Court.

A Hong Kong court has severely criticised the provisional liquidators (PLs) appointed by the court in the company’s place of incorporation in the Cayman Islands, for trying to interfere with the rights of creditors in Hong Kong and to bypass the statutory scheme of winding-up in Hong Kong. In GTI Holdings Limited [2022] HKCFI 2598, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan said it was a matter of concern to see that solicitors and counsel engaged by the PLs in Hong Kong "did not bring home to the provisional liquidators their duties owed to the creditors and to this court".

This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Nicolas Criniti Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 1149 which examined the intersection between the winding up provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).

Key takeaways

WHITE PAPER An Update on Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry The construction sector in Australia has long been affected by insolvency and broader liquidity issues. In the last year, construction companies accounted for 26% of businesses that entered into insolvency, and insolvencies in the construction sector more than doubled. This year, contractors have been further squeezed by inflation, supply chain issues and labour market shortages. As the federal government has wound back its COVID-19 economic stimulus packages, further collapses seem inevitable.

The Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (“TPR”) will finally come into force on 1 August 2016, making it easier for third parties to bring claims against insurers of insolvent companies.  It has taken more than six years, spread over three separate governments and was amended even before it came into force, but TPR will finally replace the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the “1930 Act”).

The Background

In the event of a tenant becoming insolvent, it is clearly important for a landlord to know where rent payable ranks in administration. A recent landmark decision handed down by the High Court strengthens the position of landlords by deciding that rent can now be more widely payable as an expense of the administrator.

Background

Simply, if rent is ranked as an expense of the administration1 then it is almost always discharged in full as a mandatory expense of the administrator, rather than being placed with lower priority creditors.

On 2 March 2007 the High Court handed down the first decision on whether non-domestic rates are payable by an administrator as an expense, and in priority to his remuneration, under Rule 2.67 Insolvency Rules 1986 ("IR"). The judge determined that rates in respect of occupied business premises are a "necessary disbursement" (Rule 2.67(f) IR) of an administration.

Although it was not argued, the judge also expressed the view that this liability to pay rates incurred during the period of the administration would be unaltered if the property were unoccupied during this time.

Due to the introduction of new tax legislation on 6th April 2016, distributions made to shareholders of companies undergoing Members’ Voluntary Liquidation (MVL) are now treated as income (rather than capital) and are taxed accordingly.

In a blow to administrators that will surely impact on the timings of any administration, most particularly those involving a large property portfolio, HHJ Purle, sitting in the High Court, has handed down a decision that will have ramifications potentially as serious as those of Re Trident Fashions for administrators in considering how long to remain in office, or indeed whether to accept an appointment at all.