The High Court has ruled that liquidators of lessors can disclaim leases, thus terminating the leasehold interests of tenants.

However, yesterday's High Court decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc. v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) [2013] HCA 51 leaves open another issue: do liquidators need to get Court approval before exercising this power, and, if so, how easy or difficult would it be to get that approval?

Key Points

The Australian unit trust industry recently experienced financial difficulties. The formal legal process of handling those difficulties has revealed gaps in the Australian regulatory map.

This article highlights some of those problems and the Government’s response to them.

Background

The abolition of the "peak indebtedness" rule will complicate liquidators' tasks, not least its adverse effect on pursuing preferences where it's unclear what forms the single transaction.

While the High Court has provided some clarity on the operation of the statutory priority regime, insolvency practitioners will still need to tread carefully when dealing with corporate trustees.

For insolvency practitioners who need clarity on how receivers and/or liquidators should pay, out of trust assets, priority employee claims arising from trust liabilities, the High Court's decision in Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2019] HCA 20 (Amerind) is a welcome result.

Following a landmark decision in the Full Federal Court, employees will retain their priority to payment of their entitlements in a company liquidation, even where the company is a corporate trustee of a trust.

Key Points:

Although they should always keep time-frames very much in mind, the decision in BKA Practice Co Pty Ltd gives liquidators greater scope to find all possible time-frames in which they have to work.

Key Points:

For a company to be entitled to subrogation under section 560, it must ensure that it meets the strict requirements of section 560 and does not pay entitlements directly to the relevant company's employees.

In the recent case of Dwyer & Ors and Davies & Ors v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [2011] SASC 27, Chicago Boot claimed that certain payments made to it by two insolvent companies were not unfair preference payments, because of, amongst other defences, the purported application of a retention of title clause in relation to the supply of goods by Chicago Boot.

The latest decision in the Arrium collapse should give some encouragement to Australia's restructuring sector.

Following a lengthy trial of 38 days in the NSW Supreme Court in March and April 2021, Justice Michael Ball (no relation) has handed down the decision in the two proceedings, Anchorage Capital Masters Offshore Ltd v Sparkes (No 3); Bank of Communications Co Ltd v Sparkes (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1025.

In dismissing these proceedings, Justice Ball has given some comfort to restructuring in Australia,

The decision in the Go Energy Group is an important one for insolvency practitioners, who now have guidance on how to manage the conflicts that can arise when acting as liquidator to multiple companies within a corporate group.