Insolvency practitioners and creditors facing voidable transaction claims will need to reassess the value of any potential or threatened unfair preference claims or other voidable transaction claims, following two important insolvency decisions in the High Court yesterday (Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 (Metal Manufactures); Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2 (Badenoch).

It held that:

During the lifetime of a company some of the most difficult problems that a director faces are encountered if the company is in financial difficulty: not yet unable to pay its bills and insolvent but with a possibility that it may get to that position. At that stage the decisions made by a director may affect not only the survival and future of the company but also the director's own position.

In a historical first female majority High Court Judgment, Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd[1]saw all seven Judges unanimously uphold the decision to abolish the Peak Indebtedness Rule, and set in place the starting point for calculation of “all transactions” in a “running account”.

中伦观点

引言

在执行案件中，多个债权人争夺同一被执行人财产的情形并不罕见。在“僧多粥少”的情况下，债权人能否分配到财产以及能分配到多少财产往往取决于债权人是否采取了恰当的措施。由于执行相关法律法规较为繁杂，为了更好地阐述法律观点，本文我们将通过一个真实案件改编的模拟案例对执行程序中财产分配涉及实务问题逐一展开分析。

模拟案例引入

2018年，甲公司向乙公司出借2亿元用于经营，双方签订《抵押合同》约定乙公司将其名下A和B两处不动产抵押给甲公司，抵押范围包括乙公司欠甲公司的借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用。双方办理了抵押登记。因种种原因，两处不动产的登记簿登记显示抵押的债权数额分别为1000万元。后因乙公司无法到期偿还借款，甲公司向Y市法院起诉要求乙公司返回借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用并同时申请查分了乙公司名下C、D和E三处不动产。Y市法院判决乙公司偿还上述所有款项。

Co-author: Ben  Gibson, Barrister, Victorian Bar

Case Name:Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2

Issues: Voidable transactions and unfair preferences: abolition of the peak indebtedness rule, the existence of a continuing business relationship.

The abolition of the peak indebtedness rule will likely reduce the quantum of unfair preference claims where there is a running account and render some claims unviable for further pursuit.

Recent consideration of statutory insolvent trading duties by appellate courts provides fresh guidance for managing these risks. Three decisions stand out: two recent, one anticipated. Collectively, they provide (or will provide) a critical roadmap for directors operating businesses in precarious financial positions.

The appetiser: Debut Homes

The recent decision by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re LTL Management, LLC did not address or negate the viability of divisive mergers of entities under the Texas Business Organizations Code (the “TBOC”). Various news articles concerning the decision have reported that the court disapproved of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” transactions undertaken by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in the face of its mounting talc tort litigation.

CargoLogicAir Limited (the Company) was the UK's only all-cargo main deck freight airline. Due to sanctions imposed on its Russian owner, the Company was unable to effectively trade and pay its debts as they fell due despite obtaining a 'Basic Needs Licence'. Its sole director applied to appoint administrators.

Issues

The court considered two key issues:

In Worthy Lending LLC v. New Style Contractors. Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held that a security interest includes a lender’s right to force the borrower’s account debtors to remit payments directly to the lender, regardless of whether an event of default exists. Further, the court clarified that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) does not provide a distinction between a security interest and an assignment.

In a decision that may provide much-needed boundaries around the permissibility of debtors created from “out-of-the-box” prepetition corporate transactions, on January 30, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous opinion dismissing Johnson & Johnson subsidiary LTL Management, LLC’s (“LTL”) chapter 11 case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey as not being filed in good faith.¹