In this week’s TGIF, we consider the dangers of being the last one standing in ‘mothership’ preference claims. In the recent decision of In the matter of Bias Boating Pty Limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2019] NSWSC 47, Black J ordered costs against a number of defendants to a preliminary question of insolvency even though they did not participate in the hearing of that question.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal where a company’s creditors successfully opposed an application by the company’s liquidators to compromise proceedings commenced on the company’s behalf.

In the recent case of 1st Fleet Pty Ltd (in liquidation), the Court clarified the information disclosure obligations of external administrators in the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (IPSC) and Insolvency Practice Rules (Corporations) 2016 (Rules).

There is only a short time period for compliance, and there can be cost consequences for non compliance.

Recently the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld a decision to deny liquidators approval of a proposed settlement in McDermott and Potts as liquidators of Lonnex Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2019] VSCA 23. The creditors had been opposed to the settlement.

Background

This month at Business Breakfast Club, Lachlan Abbott and Fergus McFarlane of Ernst & Young provided the liquidator’s perspective on legal and illegal phoenix activity. Owing to growing concerns around phoenix activity there has been an increase in regulatory attempts to deter and disrupt illegal phoenix activity.

What is Phoenix Activity?

In the recent decision of Heavy Plant Leasing [2018] NSWSC 707, a creditor successfully defended an unfair preference claim by establishing it did not have reasonable grounds to suspect the insolvency of the debtor company, who was a subcontractor in the earth moving business.

The most common way of defending a liquidator’s unfair preferences claim is to rely upon section 588FG(2) of the Corporations Act 2001(Cth); commonly called the ‘good faith defence’.

This week’s TGIF considers some ways insolvency practitioners can make their lives easier by proactively using the courts to resolve uncertainty – such as liquidators seeking appointment as receivers of trust property as in the recent Federal Court decision of Freeman; In the matter of Blue Oasis Holdings Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 822.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Liquidators were appointed to the corporate trustee of a family trust.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of In the matter of Umberto Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCA 541,which involved an application to appoint special purpose liquidators and to obtain the Court’s approval of their funding and legal arrangements.

What happened?

In the recent case of Cash Generator Limited v Fortune and others [2018] EWHC 674 (Ch), the Court determined that non-compliance with the deemed consent procedure for nominating liquidators did not invalidate their appointment. The case provides a useful summary on the relatively new provisions governing the deemed consent procedure and welcome relief to Insolvency Practitioners (“IPs”) that a failure to fully comply with such provisions will not necessarily invalidate their appointment.

Brief facts and arguments

The United Kingdom and Australia have recently implemented legislative changes to permit external administrators to assign or sell causes of action available to them.