Your insurer goes bust – can you as an insured claim the reinsurance proceeds? An important decision in the NSW Supreme Court gives useful guidance on when a court will allow departures from the statutory scheme controlling the application of reinsurance proceeds (Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90).

The insurer goes broke, and there are all these claimants at the door…

Everyone loves a bargain – accordingly, there is a lot of interest when liquidators and other insolvency practitioners put a business up for sale. Purchasers jostle like shoppers in the Myer stocktake sale, trying to position themselves as the perfect purchaser. At the same time they try to convey their concern about the value of the business or assets – everyone expects a discount for a distressed business.

In brief

A recent decision by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) –v- Apple Computer Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 109 provides useful guidance on the key aspects of shadow directorships and to what extent advices can be given by an interested party such as a financial accountant or a lender to a debtor without that interested party falling within the definition of "shadow director".

Background

Law clerk, Myles Engelen, discusses the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, in McGrath & Anor re HIH Insurance Ltd approving a proposal to use excess assets of some members of the group to fund claims by the group members.

Every director of an Australian company is under a legal duty to prevent the company incurring a debt when the company is insolvent (or where that debt will cause the company to become insolvent).

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission's (ASIC) new Regulatory Guide sets out four key principles which directors should follow to meet their obligation to prevent insolvent trading.

The Regulatory Guide also sets out ASIC's approach to assessing whether a director has breached their duty.

Background

Before 1993, the question of whether a creditor of a corporation being wound up had received an unfair preference from that corporation was determined under section 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). In 1993, a new Part 5.7B was inserted into the Corporations Act to deal with voidable transactions such as unfair preferences. Since then two lines of divergent judicial authority have developed:

In brief

Courts have recently approved a number of means by which external administrators can realise value from insolvent agricultural managed investment schemes and deal with the rights of growers and sponsor creditors:

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. 

The law of "shadow directors" means that a person who effectively controls a board of a company, even though that person is not a director, may find himself being legally classified as a director of the company. That carries with it the threat of legal liability for the company's insolvent trading debts in the event that the company goes into liquidation.

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: