Payment of priority creditors under section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) is an activity conventionally performed by liquidators, albeit the section is silent as to the holder of the relevant payment obligation. The Federal Court of Australia has recently confirmed that distributions to priority (employee) creditors are not the exclusive purview of liquidators (where receivers are appointed contemporaneously); receivers may exercise the powers contained in section 561 to distribute certain funds to such priority creditors.
Key Points:
This case provides some clarification of matters relating to registration of retention of title clauses for secured creditors dealing with grantors
The registration of security interests on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) is a critical, yet unresolved, issue in the context of the appointment of administrators and liquidators, and also for parties to sale transactions.
Key Points:
The NSW Supreme Court says it can provide directions on an administrator's commercial decision on the basis of the liability assumed by administrators and their partners.
The statutory exemption can be refreshed each time a person signs a new contract, even if he/she continues to hold the same position.
Receivers of a failed company have been unable to convince the Federal Court that statutory restrictions on termination payments reduced the payout entitlement of a senior executive (White v Norman; In the Matter of Forest Enterprises Australia Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (in Administration) [2012] FCA 33).
Background
As participants in the Australian debt restructuring market continue to innovate we expect to see an increase in these control transactions, testing further again the Australian statutory regimes.
Directors are first and foremost responsible to the company as a whole and must exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The reference to "acting in the best interests of the company" has generally been interpreted to mean the collective financial interests of the shareholders.
The Court will closely examine the relevant transactions involving the accounts and form a view – which may be an impressionistic one – as to the likely extent of the interest of each client (or each client group) in those accounts.
Key Points:
While shareholders may only need to establish indirect market causation, there are still significant obstacles for establishing shareholder claims.
Do plaintiffs in a shareholder class action have to show they relied upon misleading or deceptive conduct, or is it enough that the market in general relied upon them, which then affected the share price?
The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is designed to supplement States' insolvency laws with a framework to address cross-border insolvency proceedings.